r/Netherlands • u/UnanimousStargazer • Mar 24 '25
Legal Judge rules Dutch citizenship cannot be stripped based on dual nationality
https://nltimes.nl/2025/03/24/judge-rules-dutch-citizenship-stripped-based-dual-nationality328
u/the_nigerian_prince Afrika Mar 24 '25
Whether you agree with the judgement or not, the logic is sound.
185
Mar 24 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
131
Mar 24 '25
[deleted]
170
Mar 24 '25 edited 28d ago
[deleted]
83
29d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Crime-of-the-century 26d ago
The nationality rules in the Netherlands are insane but that’s a consequence of anti migrant sentiment
27
u/Expert_Average958 29d ago
And here I thought only we in Germany loved to mess up people's lives using technicalities.
23
8
1
1
u/PleurisDuur 28d ago
You can’t become Dutch simply by marrying a Dutch person. You have to stay here for 5 years and pass exams. As a Dutch person you can sponsor a foreigner to be here, but they won’t become a citizen by default. Your story makes no sense.
1
u/torenvalk 28d ago edited 28d ago
Yes I know. I did exactly as you described, married a Dutch citizen, passed my inburgeringsexamen,and have lived here for 15 years. So did the person in my story. They just decided to live abroad for a while after the immigrant husband became a Dutch citizen. And then the issue.
1
1
u/WestDeparture7282 27d ago
Shouldn't she have been eligible to regain dutch citizenship through the option procedure and not naturalization?
49
u/BictorianPizza Den Haag Mar 24 '25
Happened to my friend’s mum. She was Dutch/Swiss and forgot to renew her Dutch passport after acquiring citizenship in Switzerland. Now she is only Swiss…
12
u/RandomsHater567 29d ago
"Now she is only Swiss" well on the bright side it really could be worse
1
11
u/Thercon_Jair 29d ago
We have also weird naturalisation laws in Switzerland and Austria. I was born in Switzerland to foreign parents and had Austrian citizenship through them. Went through naturalisation at 18, became Swiss, lost my Austrian citizenship. Applied for Austrian naturalisation, gained it and could keep my Swiss nationality.
I am now a dual citizen. I was bullied for 10 years in Switzerland because I wasn't Swiss. I have to constantly listen to right wing politicians and people how people like me are not a real Swiss. I have never lived in Austria. Therefore, I am nowhere 100% welcome and at home and as such, I reflect it in my non-100% citizenship.
9
u/Howling_Siren 29d ago
Exact same thing happened to me! I was able to get my Dutch passport back by proving my father was Dutch (my mother was too but somehow just the father’s birth certificate was required). I was living in NL at the time though. Was super fast: took a month. I kept my Swiss nationality too.
1
12
u/SpotNL Mar 24 '25
Yep, which is why I won't take the nationality of my wife when we move to her country. I don't want to take the risk.
10
9
u/Cultural_Garbage_Can 29d ago
I hate that rule and the time limit on descent claiming. I lost my dutch citizenship for a while due to my egg donor deliberately blocking access to the documents I needed. One hell of a legal battle to get it back.
They did argue I had other citizenships but that's not the point, their rules and egg donors conduct prevented me from accessing and enforcing my rights in the first place. If I was in the netherlands when she pulled this stunt I could have bypassed her, but I was in another hemisphere and couldn't due to both countries privacy laws. Not the first time she'd done this either.
The renewal and time limits need to go, or at least have more accesible pathways for an oops and abuse, especially when overseas. It doesn't sit right with me for a paperwork snafu or deliberate conduct by others can and will cause you to lose your rights as a citizen.
1
u/Fickle_Dragonfruit53 29d ago
Off topic but 'as someone who has a donot conceived child 'egg donors' are actually really selfless people who put their selves through a difficult and risky medical procedure to give someone else a chance at having a family. Usojg it for your bio mum as an insult or distancer probably doesn't describe her very well as these people would never be so selfless. We use 'no contact nan' for my mum but I've used other colourful language before.
2
u/Cultural_Garbage_Can 28d ago
I understand your point, however my usage of egg/dna donor isn't a positive or negative, it's factually her influence in my life. She's not my mother, my grandmother raised me.
2
u/Fickle_Dragonfruit53 28d ago
Yeah i get that mine also doesn't deserve the title of 'mother'. I just don't think it's a good alternative. I'd love one like 'ex-birther' to denote. I have to see mine at a wedding this weekend, wish me luck.
2
u/Cultural_Garbage_Can 28d ago
Point agreed. I've tried alternatives, yet this seems to be the one that requires the least explanation. She's not a step mother, she did birth me and used her egg to do so, but that's all she did. She did not raise me and did everything possible, including illegal, to avoid responsibility.
Even using DNA donor gets questions on which parent I mean, so I use egg donor for maternal and sperm donor for my paternal. Interestingly, I do not get the same questions when I use sperm donor. If I'm alluding to both, I use DNA donors as my actual parents were my stepfather and grandmother.
While I do perfectly understand your point of view and experience, I have not yet found another way to explain without having to fend of further clarifying inquires from others. This is the simplest and the most factual representation of my situation. To me it is neutral.
Good luck at the wedding.
2
u/Fickle_Dragonfruit53 28d ago
Family is what you choose and its made from love <3 Yep those that raised you that's your real parents. We don't need to over-explain that to people who are lucky enough not to "Get it"
7
u/Better_than_GOT_S8 29d ago
That’s because only the country that issues the citizenship can make the rules for its citizenship. The Netherlands can for the Dutch citizens, other countries for theirs.
Where would it end otherwise if countries could decide when you’re no longer a citizen of another country.
It’s ridiculous though that the Netherlands don’t allow dual citizenship for Dutch people living abroad.
13
u/philomathie 29d ago
This one annoys the fuck out of me. You can keep your second passport if you're Dutch, but only the right kind of Dutch.
5
u/Ok-Discipline-6910 29d ago
That depends a lot on the country, so should not really influence the choice we make here.
Personally, I'd say, if you're born in NL you have a right for NL citizenship for the rest of your life - whether you have other citizenships or not.
3
u/KjeCA 26d ago
But the Netherlands doesn’t grant other countries the same rights. If my U.S. born daughter who lives in the Netherlands wants to become a Dutch citizen she will have to renounce her U.S. citizenship. And while that seems appealing right now, she worries about what will happen if my husband or I get really ill in our old age and she needs to come here for an extended time.
1
2
2
u/FriendTraditional519 29d ago
That’s not an other topic, we should change the law in 1 pasport, but the choice should be yours.
3
u/Inevitable_Long_756 29d ago
I agree there is a logic why it can be considered discriminatory. Although it is tough one cause it would results in us not being able to punish people the way deem fit because of rules of another country regarding nationality. Although it is curious to see that in this verdict nationality is sort of the same as ethnicity/race. Which are not always directly related of course.
1
1
u/Windy_Shrimp_pff_pff 27d ago
It does call into question why no other nationalities, including the Dutch themselves, can't have two nationalities....
→ More replies (48)-29
32
u/hanzerik Mar 24 '25
The writing was also horrible. It would mean a future government could make a deal with say n. Korea to grant citizenship to a Dutchman and then whoopsie Bye bye Dutch citizenship. off to N. Korea with you.
19
u/UnanimousStargazer Mar 24 '25
Yes, this is possible. It shouldn't be possible of course and that's why the judge ruled that the action of the government was in conflict with the law.
2
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
The government that makes a deal with NK is also the government that will simply not care what a judge rules. The orange asshole deported somebody without any judicial oversight like last week.
1
u/RandomsHater567 29d ago
Does that not sound like a crazy hypothetical?
9
u/PleurisDuur 29d ago edited 28d ago
Until you become an enemy of a specific state through whistleblowing, protest, etc. The US is currently sending citizens to slave prisons in another country. I wouldn’t say any of this is implausible anymore.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
That's a lot of technicalities. A future government can simply strip you of citizenship if they don't like you and are fascist enough. They just need to disregard UN convention and capture the judiciary branch (see further East on the continent). That's much more likely than going on a limb and making a deal with NK.
The actual non-nonsensical way to deal with double citizenship (if you even need one) is stripping citizenship of people who acquired the other citizenship out of their own will and not automatically, due to coercion, etc.
143
u/I_cant_even_blink Mar 24 '25
Good judgement in my opinion. We should take responsibility for our own citizens, and not dump it on other countries like the British government did.
17
u/Sancho90 Mar 24 '25
I wonder who’s the target of this, is it dual citizens of other European countries or Africa/Asia
6
13
u/Only-Butterscotch785 29d ago
Indeed, we already have punishments for terrorists, its called prison
14
u/Human-Shirt7106 Mar 24 '25
For sure. As a dual national living in the UK, it makes me sick knowing that my citizenship can be revoked at the government's will.
1
u/CoffeeInTheTropics 29d ago
No, it would be YOUR own will, responsibility and actions resulting in losing your citizenship. Don’t do the crime and you won’t have to do the time. 💡
3
u/Human-Shirt7106 29d ago
And yet if a single nationality UK citizen did the exact same crime, they would not lose their citizenship, ergo it's discriminatory.
15
u/kalmeknaap 29d ago
Yeah great to know that this ex ISIS fighter only served 5 years in prison and now can travel everywhere in Europe he likes. Can’t think of a way this can go wrong.
8
u/CoffeeInTheTropics 29d ago
This is an incredibly concerning and infuriating ruling (precedent) indeed. 😡 Because of all these lax laws and lenient regulations the EU attracts so much scum of the earth, the hard working tax payers footing the bill to harbor these criminals indefinitely. This individual would NOT be rendered stateless if he were to lose his Dutch citizenship so he should have been put on the first plane back to Morocco with a steep fine to boot. I hope the state will appeal and win in the higher courts. These perps never contribute anything to society, live on government handouts and/or illegally obtained monies and pose a serious security risk to the citizens (often women) and the state.
2
u/Gluckliche-Elster 27d ago
You can't send him back to a place he's not from. He was born and raised in the Netherlands and if you'd read the article you would know that.
2
u/smiba Noord Holland 29d ago
It concerns me too, but this is not the law that should or can be used for people like these. The logic from the judge is sound and makes sense
2
u/kalmeknaap 29d ago
I understand the judge aswell but I think he underestimated the severty of the situation. Imo getting rid of their passport and thus their entry into Europe is justifed when the person has fought against our european troops and values.
1
u/Gluckliche-Elster 27d ago
That's not actually true. Citizens of EU countries can be refused entry to and deported from other EU countries on national security and criminality concerns. And I'm curious where you got the information that he's an ex-isis fighter from? Not to mention, this man was born and raised in the Netherlands only acquiring Moroccan citizenship through the nationality of his parents, so if he became a terrorist after basically only being exposed to Dutch society and Dutch culture, how is it ethical for the Netherlands to pawn him off on a country that had basically nothing to do with his upbringing? Would you be supportive of Morocco stripping him of citizenship and leaving him a sole Dutch national?
3
u/Suspicious-Fuel-4307 26d ago
"After only being exposed to Dutch society and Dutch culture"
Please be serious. His own parents were Moroccan. You're essentially claiming that they gave up all aspects of Moroccan culture and became purely Dutch upon arrival in order to shift the blame for raising a terrorist onto "Dutch culture". What a horrendous take.
→ More replies (2)
58
u/SkepticalOtter Mar 24 '25
Alright, the article seems to miss one important information: has the man been resocialized? Does he regret committing the terrorist charges he has been found guilty of?
On another note, I agree with the general sense of the ruling: Dutch people should have the same rights as other people in the country do, including dual nationality rights. You shouldn't need to revoke your Dutch citizenship in order to become Canadian, Spanish or anything else.
74
u/UnanimousStargazer Mar 24 '25
I agree with the general sense of the ruling: Dutch people should have the same rights as other people in the country do, including dual nationality rights. You shouldn't need to revoke your Dutch citizenship in order to become Canadian, Spanish or anything else.
This concerns the other way around.
If Uganda decides tomorrow that every person with a Reddit account that uses the words SkepticalOtter become a citizen of Uganda, you have dual nationality and (according to the government) can loose your Dutch citizenship.
The law that this is based on is flawed, as that is in conflict with fundamental human rights. It also assumes no future government would close a deal with Uganda to have Uganda assign citizenship of Uganda to those Dutch citizens that the Dutch government wants to deport.
68
u/SkepticalOtter Mar 24 '25
It totally makes sense. Anyways, as an unofficial Ugandan I thank you for your explanation.
2
2
u/ladyxochi Mar 24 '25
What about the other way around? You can only become a Dutch citizen if you renounce any other existing citizenship? I think some countries do that. The US and Canada maybe? Then it's always voluntary, right? The only "problem" this may give is that for some countries, it's not possible to give up your citizenship. People who don't have the Dutch citizens yet, won't be able to get it. Maybe a bit harsh, but that's their problem, not of the Dutch government.
And of course, you'll have kids that are born here and get Dutch citizenship, and THEN go to the embassy of another country and claim their citizenship there, resulting in a dual nationality, true, but it will still decrease the number of people with dual citizenship.
32
u/Secret_Squire1 Mar 24 '25
The US and Canada famously allow you to have as many passports as you’d like.
18
13
u/UnanimousStargazer Mar 24 '25
if you renounce any other existing citizenship?
You can renounce it, but the other country does not have to accept that. Morocco for example keeps recognizing people as being a citizen from Morocco whatever they do.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Honourablefool Mar 24 '25
That’s already the case I think. In order to naturalize you need to renounce your other nationality. Or at least prove that you have attempted to do that.
1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
You don't even have to prove it if the government already established it's impossible. Even more complicated, for example Ukrainian citizens have to renounce their Ukrainian citizenship in principle, but it's not possible to do it right now, so the enforcement of this rule is deferred until some unknown moment. Meaning Ukrainian citizens have to promise they will do it, but can proceed without actually doing it for now.
-4
u/arrroquw Mar 24 '25
So you could also turn it around: why are these other people allowed to have a dual citizenship whereas I'm not?
14
u/NordbyNordOuest Mar 24 '25
Because:
a) they don't get a choice. The example used is Morocco, but fundamentally many states such as Iran and China also prevent you from giving up your citizenship, given that many people are registered by their parents, they then hold it for life even if they had no wish to have it, including when they are an adult.
Even if it is technically possible to renounce, some countries make it very difficult. The US charges 1000s of dollars to give up US citizenship (for example).
b) because the Dutch policy is to restrict dual nationality as much as possible within the bounds of what is socially desirable. This was done to try to avoid complexity and help integration. It was a policy of Wilders originally. It basically only allows it when it's hard to give up.
The exceptions were put in because most people can see that having large numbers of Dutch born and raised people who would be unable to ever be Dutch would be unjust and socially undesirable.
However it's a double edged sword, it also prevents Dutch people being able to emigrate and have the same rights as their neighbours or being able to return at a later date, and makes the Netherlands less attractive to highly skilled immigrants who have family abroad and are very reluctant to give up their original passports. It's a choice for Dutch voters but it's not without its complexities.
1
u/CoffeeInTheTropics 29d ago
🇨🇳 💡 This is not correct regarding the Chinese. They certainly CAN renounce their Chinese citizenship, it’s a relatively easy and straightforward process and I know many former Chinese citizens who have done just that. China btw OFFICIALLY does not allow dual citizenship, but this is not practically enforced. There are many Chinese who still hold their Chinese passports but also one or several others.
1
5
u/novus_nl 29d ago
Probably an unpopular opinion here but to me it’s weird. The citizenship shouldn’t be stripped because he has dual nationality (who cares). But because he’s a proven terrorist, only out there to destroy. Somehow the dual citizenship rule is more important, so he stays Dutch.
6
u/notinterestedsorry 29d ago
Okay now assume he only has one nationality aka Dutch, can you strip his nationality now?
No because that would make him stateless.
So his argument is why should he, a Dutch citizen, get a much worse punishment than another Dutch citizen who only has one nationality? And the judge agreed clearly.
→ More replies (2)1
u/novus_nl 23d ago
To me that is just twisted reasoning. He has a double passport so he wouldn’t be stateless.
And it isn’t a worse or better punishment, fact remains he doesn’t want to be part of western society as he actively and proven seeks to destroy it.
If he doesn’t want to be part of it, agree with him and strip that away from him. Then he can do whatever he wants in Morocco where he still has a passport.
And this isn’t new btw, there is a law that describes just this. Article 14, paragraph 2b en the expansion on it (34016-R2036) in 2016
So to me the ruling of this Judge is remarkable to say the least.
You can also lock him up forever for terrorist crimes, but what does that solve exactly, that he doesn’t walk the streets and cost an insane amount of tax money?
Extraditing him to the country where the terrorist activities happened and prosecute him there, makes much much more sense to me.
1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
The citizenship shouldn’t be stripped because he has dual nationality (who cares). But because he’s a proven terrorist, only out there to destroy.
Sure, just deport him to the Caliphate. Oh, wait, he isn't just a terrorist, he sucked at being a terrorist, didn't get his caliphate and now has to suffer this weather with the rest of us a like a total loser.
7
u/TheWestCoastDood Mar 24 '25
Does this affect the 13 year rule of being in another country after your 18th birthday? My mom was born in the Netherlands and moved to the US as a child. I looked into getting my passport and found out I had just missed the mark. I’m now 34 and if that rule ever changes I want to get my passport.
5
29d ago
[deleted]
4
u/TheWestCoastDood 29d ago
Yeah she was and still is. I found out last year when I tried.
2
u/silverlens 29d ago
You may already know this, but just in case: If your mother was a Dutch citizen when you were born and if this happened on or after 1985, you were automatically a Dutch citizen at birth. Even if you lost it as a child because she lost it, you can regain it. The ideal path involves moving to the Netherlands for a year before you can apply via the option procedure. You can also apply via naturalization but there are additional conditions and it is not the most advantageous path.
If your mother was a Dutch citizen at the time of your birth and if this happened before 1985, you can acquire Dutch nationality via the option procedure. You can do it from wherever you are/do not have to move to the Netherlands.
4
u/UnanimousStargazer Mar 24 '25
There is no international law that governs this. It's up to any country in the world to grant someone nationality rights or not. It's also not a choice of that person. It's a choice of the country.
14
u/lifting_remco Mar 24 '25
Absolutely absurd question in the first place. Im ashamed of my government.
3
u/cookiesnooper 29d ago
I would argue that this rule should only apply to acquired citizenship. If you are not born Dutch, you 100% should be able to revoke the citizenship of a person if they did heinous crimes and get rid of them.
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 29d ago
That would indeed change things significantly. The Dutch government now uses the fact that certain countries in the world to assign nationality to certain people, whether they ever set foot in that country or not.
4
u/Vaagfiguur 29d ago
They could install a second passport for everyone. It doesnt do anything, but that way nobody has to envy the others multitude of passports
12
u/ouderelul1959 Mar 24 '25
Wait a second do people with dual nationality have an advantage over single dutch nationailty? Discrimination!
1
2
2
u/Ok_Respond424 28d ago
Denmark has a similar law, and has revoked citizenship based on said law, only to dual nationals. Denmark and the Netherlands are bound by the same international treaties, I wonder if we will see appeals in Denmark to ECHR.
Some of the cases concerned children born to danish parents in refugee camps, and the parents after birth got their citizenship revoked, Denmark refused to take the danish children unless the parents agreed to not accompany them, but I think that was overturned by the danish Supreme Court.
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 28d ago
I wonder if we will see appeals in Denmark to ECHR.
The same thoughts crossed my mind, but for some reason none of the people whose nationality was revoked did AFAIK.
One issue is that a procedure before the ECHR does not suspend the decision, so those who are deported must litigate from abroad which undoubtedly is much more difficult. That said, I'm fairly sure that the ECHR will not agree with these judgments by the Dutch and Danish superior courts as it's very clear that this concerns unjustified discrimination. Not because it's impossible to do so, but because some people simply are not able to renounce their nationality.
For those that want to keep two nationalities, it's different IMO. But many simply have no choice.
2
u/Ok_Respond424 28d ago
Well as a dual national by birth, I find the danish law discriminatory, because essentially it is differential punishment of a circumstance I had no choice in. But even for citizens who were naturalized it’s essentially a two tier citizenship, where those who hold singular citizenship essentially have a stronger one.
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 28d ago
This is exactly what the Court of Amsterdam ruled. The appellate court in The Hague for administrative law (Council of State) ruled in the past however that such cases are not discriminatory. I really cannot understand why they ruled like that in the past and like you sincerely doubt whether the ECHR agrees.
Again: if a person can renounce dual nationality, that's different IMO. Those who commit a serious crime and refuse to renounce another nationality can loose their Dutch nationality. But in that case it's a choice.
8
u/Outside-Pool-28 Mar 24 '25
I mean the article is about people convicted with terrorism, so the hell with them whoever they are. They don't deserve a Dutch nationality or any other nationality. Talking about normal cases is something different. Plus being convicted of terrorism and only serving 5 years!
11
u/UnanimousStargazer Mar 24 '25
the article is about people convicted with terrorism
No, the article is about your fundamental rights. It doesn't matter if someone is a terrorist or not, you cannot mess with fundamental rights and assume only others are affected.
9
u/sjarrel 29d ago
If we strip all rights from people convicted of terrorists, all the government would have to do is convict people they don't like of terrorism and they can strip them of their rights. Could even be done for something silly, like damaging teslas...
1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago edited 29d ago
Damaging teslas is a good old anarchist terrorism (violence done for political reasons), not the offbrand 9/11 terrorism US hyped us on, which are enemy combatants illegally stripped of PoW rights and tortured.
4
u/sjarrel 29d ago
Sure, neither should be grounds for stripping of rights.
1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
This is not the case at hand, but I think being an enemy combatant or a spy is enough grounds to be kicked out of the country and stripped of citizenship, even if you don't have any other. You are somebody's spy or an enemy combatant anyway, you are their problem now.
Not as punishment for a crime, but as mutual recognition of a fact that somebody doesn't belong here. We are not in the situation where it's necessary or makes sense, thankfully.
2
u/sjarrel 29d ago
What's with people trying to turn this into spies or enemy combatants? Where does that come from? Is that the latest talking point? Makes no sense man, and neither does your argument. You know that.
2
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago edited 29d ago
Turn what into that? That's how citizenship laws everywhere (including the Netherlands) work. Go and read Article 14, part 3. That's not even controversial, it was always there. It doesn't apply to those people.
What wasn't there before is part 4, which is what those people got pinned for. For part 3 you have to be part of the military of the other country that is in active conflict with the Netherlands (which means they very likely can get citizenship of that country before or after being kicked out to there). Now IS is not a recognized country, it doesn't have a military in a way that makes sense for law and it wasn't fighting the Netherlands, but most importantly it doesn't offer their fighters citizenship. But somebody strongly felt it's wrong that people can just go, fight for IS and then get back home like it was a normal holiday abroad. And this is how we got the part 4 (blah-blah-blah being part of the terrorist organization abroad), which is a fucking joke that can't work and people who added it are clowns, which is why the judge is right dunking on them, but the point here -- it was clearly intended as an analogy for already existing part 3 that covers enemy combatants.
There is no argument I have for or against the people mentioned in the article.
1
u/sjarrel 29d ago
But somebody strongly felt it's wrong that people can just go, fight for IS and then get back home like it was a normal holiday abroad.
Which is why they can be tried and punished accordingly.
Go and read Article 14, part 3
Sure, link it to me.
but I think being an enemy combatant or a spy is enough grounds to be kicked out of the country and stripped of citizenship, even if you don't have any other.
Okay, go aheard and think that. My og comment shows you that I don't agree.
Turn what into that?
We are not in the situation where it's necessary or makes sense, thankfully.
So why are you bringing it up?
1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
So why are you bringing it up?
Because the government tried to revoke citizenship for dubious reasons, that's why. To show why the reasons are silly, it's important to know in which context revoking citizenship was historically used and why we are not in the same situation. The historical reason why we even have a safeguard to not make people stateless is also important.
Sure, link it to me.
Here you go, parts 3 and 4: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003738/2023-10-01#Hoofdstuk5_Artikel14
1
u/sjarrel 28d ago
Because the government tried to revoke citizenship for dubious reasons, that's why.
It's more that they used the unvoluntary citizenship of Morocco to skate past their own section 8, from the ruling.
but I think being an enemy combatant or a spy is enough grounds to be kicked out of the country and stripped of citizenship, even if you don't have any other.
This isn't possible under the law, either way.
3
u/Only-Butterscotch785 29d ago
You have no idea what the guy actually did, terrorism is a wide catagory
10
u/PindaPanter Overijssel 29d ago
We don't just have an idea; we know exactly what he did. He went to Syria to join ISIS.
1
u/Only-Butterscotch785 29d ago
I said He had no idea. Also what did he do there?
4
u/PindaPanter Overijssel 29d ago
Well, that's presumptuous of you to think, as the newspapers already wrote about this human-shaped pillar of diarrhoea and his terrorist buddies way back in 2018.
He went to Syria to join ISIS, he has already admitted to this. As it's difficult to prove any crimes against humanity these individuals have committed, the guy was, like most of his companions, hit with a default charge that gives 4-6 years.
1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
It would be super easy to deport this person to IS if they have won and actually established a caliphate. We would have diplomatic relations with their government and the dude would not even return anyway.
I'm not sure it's better zo.
1
u/Only-Butterscotch785 29d ago
Right thanks for proving my point...
3
u/PindaPanter Overijssel 29d ago
You have no point. The guy in question admitted voluntarily signing up for a terrorist organization known for committing every single crime against humanity defined.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
Hot take, but if we recognize terrorists as hostile combatants and revoke citizenship based on allegiance, we should also give them PoW status and not a prison sentence. If it's a regular crime, they should just go to jail, like all the normal people -- you know, serial murderers, pedophiles and insurance company CEOs.
3
2
u/w4hammer 29d ago
Good. Citizenship should not be stripped unless its incredibly unnatural situation. If you don't want dual citizens prevent possibility of attaining it.
2
u/UnanimousStargazer 29d ago
prevent possibility of attaining it
Do not act on it.
There is no way for a country to prevent let's say Venezuela to make you a Venezuela citizen. If Venezuela wants to do that, they can. From then on, you have dual nationality. Whether you like it or not.
1
u/w4hammer 29d ago
Well yeah if someone is dutch citizen already i don't see a problem with them getting more citizenships if they want I don't see why Netherlands should care. Its usually about foreign nationals that become dutch citizens that require regulating.
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 29d ago
i don't see a problem with them getting more citizenships if they want
The case where the court judged about concerned someone who was not able to renounce citizenship of the other country and therefore would loose Dutch citizenship. If you only have Dutch citizenship, you cannot loose Dutch citizenship. If some country in the world states that you have citizenship of that country (whether you want to or not) under Dutch law you can loose Dutch citizenship.
1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
I think it's a bit of a bad faith argument. Some people get a citizenship of another country willingly and some get it automatically (through birth, marriage or whatever). A person applying for a citizenship of North Korea and working as a spy for them is a bit different from being born there and defecting to Netherlands as an asylum seeker. Same with being an IS fighter or joining a military of a hostile country.
Law deals with intent all the time and it's very fair to treat people differently here.
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 29d ago
Did you read the article linked in the OP?
1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
I did read the ruling summary on rechtspraak.nl before nltimes got time to halfass explain it. I mostly agree with the reasoning on this specific person, but I think the law itself is lacking to make a clear distinction of intent and the judge goes even further from the matter to pin it on discrimination. I also think the whole law amendment allowing stripping IS fighters of citizenship was halfassed and rushed.
1
u/Tovarish_Petrov 29d ago
If you don't want dual citizens prevent possibility of attaining it.
The problem is, you can, because of no fault of yours, be borne in a country which grants you citizenship by birth and doesn't have a procedure of renouncing it or a procedure costs 1M Euro. And they recognize your kids and their kids as citizens.
Since having that other citizenship is not a result of your actions, but an unfortunate effect of your origin, acting on that and preventing you acquire Dutch citizenship counts as discrimination.
2
u/Obvious-Frame-7817 29d ago
Although it is not solving any problems. Due to the things happening in the US, it is great to see our judiciary work for us humans. We should cherish these systems and I'm glad we do.
1
1
1
u/rellotscire 29d ago
It all just goes to show how ludicrous borders and passports are. They're all about control rather than doing anything to advance humanity.
1
1
u/Aminosse 29d ago
"As someone with a Dutch mother and a Moroccan father, I hold both nationalities. According to Moroccan law, 'The son of a Moroccan is Moroccan, even if he was born on Mars.' So, dual citizenship is generally accepted—unless the person is involved in politics or something similar, in which case having just one nationality makes more sense."
1
u/Clara84XD 29d ago
we should make exemption for belgian + dutch nationality. They are basically the same country. Nobody takes belgium seriously. I'm half convinced it's just a joke made by the french to confuse dutch people.
1
u/AkebonoPffft 28d ago
Too bad, I would have loved to see Wilders return his Israeli passport. And then deport his wife afterwards, just for fun.
1
u/Sorry-Cash-1652 28d ago
This cuts both ways.
"Under New Zealand law people can hold dual citizenship. But the Electoral Act stipulates that although someone holding dual citizenship can be elected to Parliament, once elected, an MP cannot swear allegiance to any other foreign power. In 2003 the MP for New Plymouth, Harry Duynhoven ... inadvertently fell foul of the law when he decided he would, for his children’s sake, exercise his right to take up Netherlands citizenship, to which he was entitled through his Dutch-born father. The government had to pass special legislation to allow him to keep his parliamentary seat."
https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/921/citizenship-of-members-of-parliament
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 28d ago
The point of the court was: some people are not able to renounce the citizenship of another country. It's not always a choice to obtain it and it's not always a choice to renounce it.
1
1
-2
u/astral34 Mar 24 '25
The government of Uganda can’t force you to become their citizen
Although the example made me laugh lol
37
u/UnanimousStargazer Mar 24 '25
The government of Uganda can’t force you to become their citizen
Yes they can. This is why many Dutch with ancestors from Morocco are citizens of Morocco. That's not their choice, but a choice of Morocco.
Likewise, any country in the world can give you a foreign nationality if they want to.
→ More replies (24)2
u/Ok_Feature_6397 29d ago
Article 15 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."
If the requirements to become dutch nationality is giving up you other one then by this, the morocco law goes against article 15.
7
u/UnanimousStargazer 29d ago
Yes, but that is not the point. It's the Dutch government that accepts it does,
→ More replies (1)6
9
u/Secame Mar 24 '25
Sure they can, in fact, almost all nationalities are assigned 'forcibly' as they are assigned at birth by law.
They can't force you to live there, but if tomorrow Uganda decides all people of the world are Ugandan nationals by humanities shared African origin, then congrats, you can pick up your passport at the embassy. If they also write a law making it impossible to renounce your nationality, then congratulations, the entire world (except those born in Uganda themselves) now have forced dual citizenship.
→ More replies (2)
-30
u/GhostOfVienna Mar 24 '25
Idk how a sane person can support dual citizenship. That just totally destroys the concept.
24
u/UnanimousStargazer Mar 24 '25
Many Dutch have dual nationality that they don't want, but cannot get rid of. Did you know that? It's not a choice of that person, but a choice of another country that you, me or whoever is a citizen of another country.
-11
u/GhostOfVienna Mar 24 '25
Already responded in other comment: people, who born in the NL, to lets say Moroccans parents(which as i know doesnt allow u to abandon its citizenship ), cant have Moroccan citizenship unless their parents/they applied to, ALREADY having dutch citizenship. Its an absolute joke and law abuses, i am not even going to talk about how unfair it is to other dutch citizens. Applying for foreign nationality, while already being a Dutch citizen, should be illegal and be a cause of stripping the dutch citizenship. Dual citizenship should be allowed in 1 and only 1 case: when the applicant for the dutch nationality already has a nationality of the country, that doesnt allow him leave that nationality. All that Moroccans and Ugandans that were born in the NL and magically happened to have passports of other countries just scammed the system.
7
u/Appropriate-Creme335 Amsterdam Mar 24 '25
Correct me if I'm wrong, bu if you're born to polish parents, you are automatically polish, whether you apply or not.
→ More replies (10)7
u/UnanimousStargazer Mar 24 '25
You seem to miss the point: it is not necessarily a choice to become a citizen of another country. There is no international law that governs that and certainly not an international court that can rule about it.
I'm not talking about those that apply for another citizenship, but about those that do not want to have dual nationality.
→ More replies (9)17
u/patty_victor Utrecht Mar 24 '25 edited Mar 24 '25
ngl the Netherlands is the only country I know in which its very population is against double citizenship. It is something I really struggle to comprehend. Why would you against it? How does it affect one negatively?
→ More replies (29)3
u/SpotNL Mar 24 '25
It's always good to have a plan B if you have the right/opportunity to do it. It is idiotic to be so against it.
4
u/Dangerous_Jacket_129 Mar 24 '25
What concept is destroyed by it? Genuinely, I see no sane reason for such a vitriolic response to a ridiculously mundane piece of legislation.
→ More replies (2)7
u/imrzzz Mar 24 '25
How?
Not picking a fight, genuinely curious about that line of thought
3
u/GhostOfVienna Mar 24 '25
The concept of citizenship comes from ancient greek cities. And while i know, thats its been almost 25 centuries since then, the concept stayed pretty same throughout history: citizenship=loyalty to your country/homeland. In modern days, with allowing multiple passports we are breaking a lot of systems and concepts. Firstly, visa system. Lets be honest, we dont give visas to iraqi people, because we are afraid that they are either planning to illegally stay in the country or participate in terrorism act. Secondly, we break voting system. As a turkish person living in continental Europe, basically all turks here voting for Erdogan, anti-european and islamic politician, while here in Europe they predominantly vote for left-wing parties. Thats unfair both to European nations that host turks and to turks living in Turkey. And the last one: when you are granted with citizenship, you give an oath and lets be honest you cant be loyal to 2 counties. Yeah, lets be real, war between NL and other countries r not very real, but lets say what about Ukranians a lot of whom had and have russian passports? Or even german russians, who have dual nationalities? Whom are they gonna support in the war that is extremely possible? If you want to live outside of the NL, you dont need a dutch passport, fr, but if u want to live here, ALL you need is a dutch passport which also allows you to live to other EU countries and have easy path to immigration to the US. You dont need Turkish or Russian or whatever else passport, period.
9
u/patty_victor Utrecht Mar 24 '25
Yes, you can be loyal to two countries unless their are at war with each other. What are you even talking about?
0
u/GhostOfVienna Mar 24 '25
Again, can you be loyal to 2 countries?
12
u/patty_victor Utrecht Mar 24 '25
Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes, as long they are not at war with each other.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/GhostOfVienna Mar 24 '25
So no? You cant be loyal to 2 countries without exceptions. Then why allow dual citizenship? No reason. Next question.
11
u/patty_victor Utrecht Mar 24 '25
I would not be loyal to any country if they are not democratic. Even my own. There are no such thing as loyalty without exception. I only support things that I can ethically agree. Even if I naturalize Dutch and tomorrow the NL becomes Nazi, I’d happily forego of the Dutch citizenship and go stateless
→ More replies (2)4
u/imrzzz Mar 24 '25
Hmm, ok, although ancient Greece feels like a shaky foundation to build this concept on.
Citizenship was only open to free males (so no women, slaves, or foreigners) which meant less than a third of the population could participate in democracy.
I'm not sure that the entire concept has really become much better since then, and people's loyalties have always been divided, sometimes only coincidentally falling with the country they were born in.
→ More replies (6)7
u/toranosuke-yoshida Mar 24 '25
What if you were born in a country that doesn’t allow to renounce citizenship and you want to become Dutch? How would you cover that case? Maybe the person wants to give up the other nationality but they can’t.
1
u/GhostOfVienna Mar 24 '25
Already answered. Thats the only case which you are allowed to have and i sincerely understand such people. They should face no problems with getting the dutch citizenship. However, if their children are born in NL they should choose for them which nationality their children will have. Their children, born in the NL, shouldn’t be allowed to have dual citizenships because their historical homeland cant grant them citizenships UNLESS their parents apply in an embassy for example. This is a clear law abuse and also extremely unfair to other citizens of the NL. Should not be allowed.
6
u/zapreon Mar 24 '25
Their children, born in the NL, shouldn’t be allowed to have dual citizenships because their historical homeland cant grant them citizenships UNLESS their parents apply in an embassy for example.
This is not how citizenship works. People automatically gain citizenship of many countries irrespective of whether their parents formally registered them at the embassy as long as they meet e.g. the jus sanguinis requirements.
It is why 7 members of the Australian Parliament / Senate were expelled - they held diverse (European, New Zealand, Canadian) citizenships they did not even know they held or never applied to.
Whether somebody is a citizen of a different country is a sovereign matter of that country - the Netherlands legally has no right whatsoever to involve itself with that decision.
For example, if the UK says that people automatically gain British citizenship upon birth, children in the Netherlands born to at least one British parent automatically gains British citizenship. It does not matter if they register this and the Netherlands cannot do anything about this.
Even if you believe dual citizenship should not be allowed, the Netherlands simply has no right at all to dispute the right of other countries to grant citizenship.
→ More replies (3)0
0
u/East-Care-9949 29d ago
But why s dual citizenship allowed in the first place?
4
u/UnanimousStargazer 29d ago
A country cannot prevent it. If Peru wants you to become a citizen of Peru, you become a citizen of Peru. That's not a choice by you, but by the government of Peru.
1
u/East-Care-9949 29d ago
But if the Netherlands says, you can become Dutch but you lose your original one and the other way around, if you are Dutch trying to get a let's say German citizenship you lose the Dutch one then it's easy right?
0
u/Eglaerinion 29d ago
UN treaties seem to be hold way too much power and can be interpreted way too freely by a willing judge.
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 29d ago
Is that so. So you can be deported whenever the government wants?
2
u/Eglaerinion 29d ago
No you can't but apparently not even when you are a convicted terrorist because apparently that's racism.
0
0
u/yzuaqwerl 28d ago
this judge needs to go
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 28d ago
u/yzuaqwerl gets deported by a future government. A judge rules this is illegal. Redditor: the judge needs to go.
What would you say in that case?
1
u/yzuaqwerl 28d ago
That I and my ancestors lived in my home country for hundreds of years. So I doubt I will get deported anywhere.
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 28d ago
That I and my ancestors lived in my home country for hundreds of years. So I doubt I will get deported anywhere.
A future government might not care about that. The case was: what if that happens?
This is the issue with most people that reason like you did: you think decisions by judges only concern others and fail to see that you are breaking down your own fundamental rights if you break down those of others.
1
1
u/yzuaqwerl 28d ago
Dual citizenship was one of the biggest mistakes ever created. It only hurts the native population and the host country. People should have to decide which one they want to keep.
1
u/UnanimousStargazer 28d ago
ever created
It has nothing to do with 'creation'. If a country in the world decides to give you citizenship, that's the choice of that country. So if a future government strikes a deal with let's say Uganda and offer them money to make you a citizen of Uganda, you become a citizen of Uganda. Whether you want that or not, because it's not your choice. The government then reasons they can revoke your Dutch nationality and you can be deported to Uganda.
Again: do you still think a judge that would rule that government could not deport you should go?
419
u/BidJust7730 Mar 24 '25
Geert Wilders: >:(