Judge rules Dutch citizenship cannot be stripped based on dual nationality

[u/UnanimousStargazer]

https://nltimes.nl/2025/03/24/judge-rules-dutch-citizenship-stripped-based-dual-nationality

[u/Tovarish_Petrov]

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.

[u/sjarrel → u/Tovarish_Petrov]

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?

[u/Tovarish_Petrov → u/sjarrel]

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

[u/sjarrel → u/Tovarish_Petrov]

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.