Motives for naturalization

Summary

R.F.A. van den Bedem

Ministry of Justice

The Hague, The Netherlands

K28 - 1993

Background of the research

On January 1, 1985, a new nationality act (Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap) came into force in the Netherlands. One of the causes for this new law, was the fact that the Netherlands had ratified a number of international conventions, which required a modification of the prevailing act. These conventions related to the reduction of cases of statelessness and plural nationality.

On the other hand, a modification of the law was desired in relation to the minority policy. The acquisition of Dutch nationality is seen as a means to improve the legal position of immigrants, who belong to the target groups of this policy. When the new act was under discussion in parliament, a number of changes were implemented in this regard. The right to a declaration of option for the second generation immigrants was the most important of these modifications. There were two major considerations for modifying the act in relation to the minority policy. First, it was considered unacceptable, if the legal position of foreign citizens, who live in the Netherlands for a long time would fall behind in relation to that of other citizens. In the second place, the acquisition of Dutch nationality is seen as a 'meaningful and proper juridical confirmation and completion of the process of advancing participation and integration in Dutch society'.

Since 1985, the number of acquisitions of Dutch nationality increased among many ethnic groups, but not among the two largest target groups of the minority policy, the Turks and the Moroccans. For this reason, a quantitative study was requested, in which the motives whether or not to choose for Dutch nationality were a central theme. The results of this study are presented in this report.

Because research of this kind had not been conducted before, it was not possible to fall back on an existing theoretical concept. Instead, exploratory research had to be conducted. This research consisted of a review of existing literature, interviews with spokesmen of minority organizations and an inventory of motives concerning the acquisition of Dutch nationality, which were mentioned in journals.

Based on this exploratory research a design for the study was created, in which three kinds of motives were distinguished, that might play a part in the balancing of the pros and cons, which precedes the decision whether or not to choose for the Dutch nationality. These types of motives are labelled situational, [*2] legal and cultural. Situational motives are based on strictly personal circumstances, legal motives are related to the differences in legal position between citizens who do and those who do not have Dutch nationality. Cultural motives concern the differences in culture between the Netherlands and the country of origin and the perception of these differences. Both motives that might encourage and motives that might discourage the decision whether or not to choose for Dutch nationality, are included in these categories.

In addition to these motives, two other kinds of factors were detected, that might influence the decision: the legal requirements for naturalization and related factors. A person can only make the decision whether or not to naturalize if he is aware of the possibility to naturalize. Furthermore, he will probably make an assessment of possible conditions that have to be fulfilled and of the consequences of naturalization. These assumptions do not have to be correct, and may vary between potential applicants. The conditions and related circumstances are considered to have only an indirect influence on the eventual decision. This decision will be based on a balancing of the pros and cons of naturalization, which are interpreted differently by each individual. Therefore, the emphasis is based on perceived motives, and the central problem of this study is defined as follows: What role do situational and cultural arguments and arguments from the point of view of the legal position play in the decision of foreign citizens whether or not to choose for Dutch nationality?

Research design

For the quantitative study a survey was conducted among members of various minority groups living in the Netherlands: Turks, Moroccans, Tunisians and Cape Verdians. These groups were chosen for various reasons. Turks and Moroccans were included, because they are the two largest target groups of this policy, and naturalizations is relatively infrequent in relation to other minority groups. The two other groups included are Tunisians and Cape Verdians; Tunisians, because they are expected to be comparable to Moroccans in terms of their religion and cultural background, yet they apply for Dutch nationality relatively more often than Moroccans. The final group included in the survey are persons originating from Cape Verde, because they apply for Dutch nationality more often than any other group of foreigners in the Netherlands.

The questionnaire centres on naturalization as a method of acquiring Dutch nationality. The reason for this limitation is the fact that other ways of acquiring Dutch nationality, such as the right to an option, are not very commonly used. As a result, the number of persons who have acquired Dutch nationality by other procedures than naturalization are to small to conduct a quantitative study. For persons, originating from Turkey and Morocco, the fact that only few have used the right to declare an option, can be explained by the fact that [*3] up to now, not many of these persons fulfilled the conditions. There is a right of option for second generation migrants, born in the Netherlands, who are between 18 and 25 years of age. Not many of these children have reached the age of 18 yet. Another right of option existed for children of mixed marriages, of which the mother had Dutch nationality. Until 1985, when the new legislation was introduced, not many mixed marriages between Dutch on one hand and Turks or Moroccans on the other have taken place. After 1985, children of mixed marriages automatically have the nationality of the father as well as the nationality of the mother.

The interviews were held between November 1991 and January 1992. Addresses of potential respondents were received from databases of registers of population of a number of cities. The objective was that in each ethnic group about 50% of the respondents would possess the original nationality and the other 50% would possess Dutch nationality or both Dutch nationality and the original nationality (dual nationality).

After the interviews had been conducted, it appeared that some respondents had already obtained the Dutch nationality while they were not yet registered as nationals. Other respondents asserted that they, contrary to the information received by the register of population, did not have Dutch nationality. This occurred relatively often among the Moroccan respondents. These questionnaires and those of respondents who obtained Dutch nationality by other procedures than naturalization, were not used in the analyses.

For the analyses, the respondents were categorized in different ways. In many cases it was necessary to include the respondents who had not yet obtained Dutch nationality, but had already started the naturalization procedure, with those who had already obtained Dutch nationality by naturalization. Therefore, we do not refer to this group as 'the naturalized' but as 'respondents who have chosen for Dutch nationality'. In some other analyses, nationality was used as criteri[on] of distinction.

In the statistical analyses, 604 questionnaires were used. These questionnaires were derived from interviews with 241 respondents, originating from Turkey, 162 respondents from Morocco, 102 from Tunisia and 99 from Cape Verde. Of each of these groups, 50% had Dutch nationality (or dual nationality) and 50% had only the nationality of the country of origin.

Description of the sample

By describing the groups, a number of differences can be seen between the respondents who did and those who did not choose for Dutch nationality. Some of these differences are related to factors in the country of origin. All of the respondents were born in the country of origin. A larger part of the respondents who have chosen for Dutch nationality, were raised in a city. This is the [*4] case for respondents, originating from Morocco and, to a lesser degree, for respondents from Tunisia and Turkey. For respondents from Cape Verde, the opposite relation can he seen.

There is a difference in the level of education in the country of origin, with the exception of respondents from Cape Verde. Respondents who have chosen for Dutch nationality are more likely to have followed a secondary education in the country of origin. These same respondents are also more likely to have followed (part of) their education in the Netherlands. This combination of education in both the country of origin and in the Netherlands causes a substantial difference in the overall level of education. The largest difference is noted among respondents, originating from Morocco, the smallest among those, originating from Cape Verde.

Among these last respondents, the difference in vocation between skilled and unskilled work is also the smallest. Among those originating from Tunisia, this difference is the largest: of the respondents, who have not chosen for Dutch nationality, 91 % does unskilled work, of those who have chosen for Dutch nationality, this is 52%. Among the respondents originating from Turkey, the difference is also considerable, although not as large as among the Tunisians. Nearly every self-employed respondents has chosen for Dutch nationality. Entrepreneurship is a common phenomenon only in the. Turkish community, however.

Respondents who have chosen for Dutch nationality, visit typically 'Dutch' places, such as restaurants, cinemas and discotheques more often. They also visit these places more often with exclusively autochthonous Dutch friends and acquaintances than respondents who have not chosen for Dutch nationality. An exception must he made for the respondents, originating from Cape Verde. This group seldom visits these places with exclusively Dutch friends and acquaintances. They do have contacts with autochthonous Dutch in the family circle, however. In these contacts, there is no differences between the respondents who have, and those who have not chosen for Dutch nationality. This difference is very distinct among the respondents originating from Morocco respondents who have chosen for Dutch nationality have more contacts with autochthonous Dutch in the family circle. These differences can also he seen among respondents, originating from Turkey and Tunisia, although not as prominent.

However, this orientation towards the Dutch does not go at the cost of contacts within the own community. Respondents who have chosen for Dutch nationality, visit community centres, coffee houses and parties for the own community just as often as respondents who have not chosen for this nationality. Respondents, originating from Turkey and Morocco, who have chosen for Dutch nationality are even more often a member of associations for the own community. Interestingly, the respondents, originating from Morocco and Turkey, without Dutch nationality, mentioned in the interviews that they were afraid that the acquisition of Dutch nationality would go at the cost of contacts [*5] within the own community. This fear is apparently not based on reality. In the communities where naturalization is a more common phenomenon, the Cape Verdian and the Tunisian, this fear is only rarely encountered.

Orientation towards the Netherlands and the country of origin

The orientation towards the Netherlands and the country of origin has been tested in a number of ways. The most distinct indication is the question in which country the respondent feels the most 'at home'. It is remarkable, that in the Cape Verdian community, where naturalization is very common, more respondents state that they feel the most 'at home' country of origin is the highest than in the other ethnic groups. This goes for both respondents who have and those who have not chosen for Dutch nationality. This question is an indication for applying for Dutch nationality only for the respondents. originating from Turkey. For the other respondents, there are no significant differences.

Other indications for the orientation towards the country of origin are the desire to return to the country of origin and the perceived possibilities to return, as well as the possession of real estate in the country of origin. Respondents, originating from Cape Verde often have the desire to return to the country of origin (35% of those who have and 65% of those who have not chosen for Dutch nationality), but most of these respondents say that there are no possibilities to return. Only few respondents, originating from Cape Verde, possess a house in that country. They are also likely to have visited the country of origin less often in the past five years than other respondents. For the other groups, there are no differences in the number of times they have visited the country of origin in the past five years. There are indeed differences in the possession of houses in the country of origin. Respondents who have not chosen for Dutch nationality, more often possess a house in the country of origin.

The respondents, originating from Tunisia, have very clear ideas about the desire and possibilities to return to that country. Among the Tunisian respondents, who have not chosen for Dutch nationality. there is a very distinct group that has the desire to return, and they also perceive possibilities to return. Among respondents, originating from Turkey and Morocco, these ideas are less clear. In general, respondents originating from Turkey, have decided not to return to the country of origin more often than the other ethnic groups. Relating to the desire and possibilities to return to the country of origin, the Moroccan respondent are the most like the Cape Verdians: they would like to return, but they perceive no possibilities to return to the country of origin. [*6] Legal conditions and connected factors

The lack of knowledge about the legal position as an alien and the differences between aliens and Dutch nationals is remarkable. A large number of respondents, especially those, originating from Morocco who have not chosen for Dutch nationality, have no answer to a number of questions about the legal position. Nearly half of this group does not know whether the legal position of a Moroccan national, living in the Netherlands is as strong as the position of a Dutch national. Apart from this general question, there are a large number of wrong answers or 'don't knows' on questions about specific parts of the legal position. An exception must be made, however, for a proposition about visas: 'A person who has a Dutch passport, requires no visas to travel through Western Europe'. The percentages of respondents who answer this question correctly varies from 83% (Respondents, originating from Cape Verde, who have not chosen for Dutch nationality) to 97% (Moroccans who have chosen for Dutch nationality.

At least part of the question why foreigners do not choose for Dutch nationality, can be answered by the fact that many are not acquainted with the possibility to obtain that nationality. Between the distinguished ethnic groups, there are substantial differences. One third of the Moroccan respondents, who have not chosen for Dutch nationality, did not know of this possibility. Among Turkish respondents without Dutch nationality, this percentage was 20%, for those, originating from Tunisia and Cape Verde, these percentages are around 10%.

Respondents, who are acquainted with the possibility, but have not chosen for Dutch nationality, find it extremely difficult to state legal requirements for naturalization. When they do state requirements, these are often requirements that are indeed stipulated for naturalization: the ability to speak Dutch, living in the Netherlands for a number of years (the minimum is two, the maximum is five years) and the absence of a criminal record. Respondents, originating from Cape Verde, often mention employment as a requirement for naturalization, while this is not stipulated in the legal procedure.

Since the ability to speak Dutch is one of the requirements to naturalize, the command of this language has been analyzed. Among the respondents, originating from Turkey and Morocco, there is a significant difference in the command of the Dutch language between those who have and those who have not Dutch nationality. This is the case for the spoken language, as well as the ability to read the language. Among the respondents, originating from Tunisia, the command of the language is good among both groups, among those, originating from Cape Verde mediocre. The better command of the Dutch language among Dutch nationals, originating from Turkey and Morocco, can partly be explained by the fact that respondents who have Dutch nationality, are more likely to have followed a Dutch language course. [*7] The naturalized respondents were asked a number of questions concerning the naturalization procedure. This procedure is, in general, not experienced as difficult, although most respondents were helped in one way or another, during the procedure. If respondents mention the procedure as difficult, they often refer to the length of the procedure.

The demand of renunciation

According to the results of the research, there is much confusion about the 'demand of renunciation'. Up until January first 1992, any person who wanted to obtain Dutch nationality, had to renounce his original nationality, unless there were mitigating circumstances. Two groups in the research for example, the Moroccans and Tunisians, did not have to renounce their original nationality, since the law in the land of origin states that renunciation of that nationality is impossible. Yet, 6% of the respondents, originating from Morocco and 18% from Tunisia, state that they have renounced their original nationality. Many respondents (23 %), originating from Cape Verde state that they still have their original nationality, although they, according to Cape Verdian law, automatically lost that nationality once they acquired Dutch nationality. Most problems occur however, among the respondents originating from Turkey. They had to renounce their Turkish nationality in order to obtain the Dutch. However, this renunciation was not required, if they could expect difficulties e.g. in the area of inheritance or the possession of real estate. During the time, in which the interviews were held, there were discussions in Dutch parliament, to abandon the demand of renunciation. This could have caused confusion among the respondents, originating from Turkey. Of the respondents, who acquired Dutch nationality, 53% state that they have renounced the Turkish nationality. Only 21 % of the Turkish respondents mention the renunciation of the original nationality as a condition for naturalization.

Motives for and against naturalization

In this summary, the differences between the respondents who have and those who have not chosen for Dutch nationality, have been discussed at length, since these differences are more differentiating than the motives mentioned for the choice for or against opting for Dutch nationality.

When the respondents were asked their most important motive for opting for Dutch nationality, most referred to their legal position. In general; the legal position and the possibility to travel through Western Europe without visas were mentioned more often than other motives by all groups. Situational motives are rarely mentioned as decisive. If these motives were mentioned as [*8] decisive, there were also other factors that played a role in the decision-making.

A personal alliance with the Netherlands is seldom mentioned as a decisive motive to choose for Dutch nationality. The fact that respondents considered themselves to be Dutch, was mentioned as a decisive motive in around I % of the responses (some respondents mentioned more than one motive). If the respondents, who have acquired Dutch nationality, are asked if they consider themselves, if only a little, 'Dutch', this feeling is seldom encountered. There are two main reasons for the absence of this alliance. Firstly, some respondents still have a unique alliance with the country of origin. Secondly, some find it impossible to consider themselves 'Dutch' as long as they are treated as foreigners. The fact that personal alliance is not a motive to opt for Dutch nationality can also be found in the answers to the proposition: 'Even if you have a Dutch passport, you are still a ... (Turk, respectively Moroccan, Tunisian or Cape Verdian)'. In all 80% of those who have opted for Dutch nationality and 90% of those who have not state that a change of nationality does not [a]ffect the community they feel that they belong.

Among the respondents, 60% mention that their children influenced their decision to opt for Dutch nationality. Often the children have lived in the Netherlands for several years, they feel 'Dutch' and will likely remain in the Netherlands.

The naturalized respondents were presented a list of 17 motives, that might have played a role in the evaluative process preceding the decision to apply for Dutch nationality. Motives of cultural and legal nature were included in the list. By combining these factors, it was expected that the distinguished ethnic groups would differ in their responses. Non-linear analyses were used to test this hypothesis. These analyses show that at an individual level, there are no such differences. Respondents from one country of origin, do not score different from the those from another country. This means that the evaluative process is the same for a person from a community in which naturalization is a common phenomenon (such as the Cape Verdian) as for a person from a community where this is rare. Naturalized Cape Verdians, who as a group take the decision to naturalize relatively easily, have also encountered objections of legal and cultural nature before taking the decision.

If the country of origin is added as a separate variable in the analyses, it shows that at least the pattern of the motives mentioned, is the sanie for the respondents of the distinguished countries of origin. Respondents, originating from Morocco, do mention many motives however, and respondents from Cape Verde only few. The respondents, originating from Tunisia and Turkey score in between these two groups.

There are various reasons not to choose for Dutch nationality. A large group states that there are no advantages to this nationality or they say th[at] this nation[*9]ality is 'not necessary' to them. Some Turkish and Moroccan respondents also mention cultural objections such as culture or religion. These would not allow obtaining Dutch nationality.

The respondents who, up until now, have not opted for Dutch nationality, say that they would probably make this choice when the circumstances would be different. For example, if this would be necessary for family reunification, many respondents would apply for Dutch nationality. Among Tunisians without Dutch nationality however, there is a relatively large group who say that they will under no circumstance, apply for Dutch nationality. This may be explained by the fact that a large number of immigrants, originating from Tunisia, have already obtained Dutch nationality: those who still have the original nationality, have apparently made a clear choice. This may be explained by the above mentioned desire to return to Tunisia.

The importance of knowledge

The motives given by respondents do not explain why immigrants apply for naturalization in general. The pattern of motives that play a role in the decision whether or not to naturalize do not differ significantly between the four ethnic groups. A description of the ethnic groups, on the other hand, does partly explain who does and who does not opt for Dutch nationality. Factors that play a role in this distinction include factors in the country of origin, the social position in the Netherlands and the orientation towards the Dutch and towards the own community.

Knowledge of the naturalization procedure and the legal position in general plays an important role. In particular, respondents are unaware of the differences in legal position between Dutch nationals and foreigners. This knowledge is often absent or respondents have a wrong perception of the legal position. Similarly, a recent study conducted among young Turks living in the Netherlands found that half of the respondents without Dutch nationality, who state that they will not apply for Dutch nationality, do not know any advantages of obtaining Dutch nationality.

It seems that the choice for Dutch nationality is based on perceived advantages, which are often of a pragmatic nature. This requires that immigrants be familiar with their legal position as a foreigner as well as the differences between this legal position and that of Dutch nationals. Furthermore, immigrants must he aware of the possibilities and requirements regarding naturalization. The research shows that this knowledge is absent or insufficient. Based on this insufficient knowledge, a balancing of the pros and cons, which precedes the decision whether or not to choose for the Dutch nationality, cannot adequately be made. Improving the knowledge of the legal position among the target groups of the minority policy seems to be more meaningful than informing these per[*10]sons about naturalization. If this knowledge is present, each individual foreigner can make a decision, based on a balance of pros and cons.

Plural nationality

The (un)desirability of plural nationality is under debate in many European countries, including the Netherlands. In this discussion, it might be useful to consider plural nationality as a means to stimulate naturalization.

As was stated, the lack of knowledge about the possibility of naturalization and conditions stipulated to naturalization is an important explanation for the failure of many immigrants to opt for Dutch nationality. Besides this factor, decisive motives to apply for Dutch nationality are often pragmatic motives, such as the easier way of travel. Considering these findings, some comments can he made on the decision to abandon the demand of renunciation of the former nationality as a means to stimulate naturalization. Regulation concerning the demand of renunciation is confusing for many respondents. Respondents, originating from Cape Verde, often believe incorrectly that they have preserved their Cape Verdian nationality (although this possibility exists in Cape Verdian law only since 1992), Tunisians and Moroccans think, wrongly, that they will lose, or have lost their original nationality, when obtaining Dutch nationality. For Turks, the situation has always been unclear. While renunciation of the original was a general rule, this was not required in some circumstances.

These comments are confirmed by statistics on naturalization. In 1992 there was, as w 1989 and 1991, a rise in the number of acquisitions of Dutch nationality. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) mentions the possibility of plural nationality as an important cause of this increase. The positiveness of this statement is doubtful, however. Considering the abandonment of the demand of renunciation of the original nationality and regulations concerning the four ethnic groups under study, especially the situation of the Turks changed in 1992. For them, the exception of dual nationality changed into a general rule. An increase of the number of Turkish applicants could therefore be expected. However, the number of acquisitions of Dutch nationality by Turks is at the moment not more than the average number of acquisitions by immigrants in general. One would expect this number to be much higher if renunciation of the Turkish nationality was the only obstacle for this ethnic group. If this was the only obstacle then one would expect those Turkish immigrants who had refrained from opting for Dutch nationality to do so as soon as this obstacle had been removed. This would lead to a short-term increase in the number of applications. The number of acquisitions by Turkish applicants would, within a few years, return to a regular level, lower than the average number of acquisitions. [*11]

Another explanation for the role of plural nationality seems more plausible. For Turks, who have been through the evaluative process, renunciation might have been an obstacle, which has now been removed. For many others, this process is not possible, because they did not know of the possibility to obtain Dutch nationality, or because of a lack of knowledge about the legal position of foreigners and the differences in legal position between Dutch nationals and foreigners. These persons will not be convinced of the advantages of obtaining Dutch nationality, despite the fact that they no longer have to renounce their original nationality when obtaining Dutch nationality. More elementary knowledge is needed. Besides abandoning the demand of renunciation, more general measures might stimulate individuals to consider applying for Dutch nationality. These measures include attention spent on naturalization and discussion within the own community. In that case, a growing number of applications within groups with low naturalization rates might be expected in the future.

Conclusion

The motives, mentioned by respondents, whether or not to opt for Dutch nationality, are very diverse. The main reasons given by immigrants who have opted for Dutch nationality are pragmatic. For an answer to the question why some immigrants do and others do not choose for Dutch nationality however, a description of the groups is more important than the motives mentioned.

The limited knowledge of the respondents concerning the ins and outs of naturalization plays an important role in the evaluative process. Many respondents are not even aware of the possibility to acquire Dutch nationality, which makes such a decision impossible. Many others, who know about this possibility are unable to balance the pros and cons, because they are unaware of the differences in legal position between Dutch nationals and non-nationals.

In addition, several comments can be made on the distinguished ethnic groups. Cape Verdians decide to apply for Dutch nationality relatively easily, despite the fact that they, as well as others, have objections against obtaining Dutch nationality. Many respondents, who did not have Dutch nationality, had applied for Dutch nationality when they were interviewed.

Among Turkish and Moroccan respondents, many doubts exist. Moroccan respondents, regardless of nationality, have often not yet decided, whether or not they will stay in the Netherlands permanently. Respondents, originating from Turkey, often have some knowledge about the legal position, but the knowledge about naturalization is minimal. Half of the Turkish respondents are unable to state any of the legal requirements for naturalization. Plural nationality makes naturalization more attractive for immigrants. Perhaps the availability of plural nationality will stimulate discussion within the Turkish community, leading to more favourable attitudes toward naturalization. Tunisians, who do [*12] not apply for Dutch nationality, are characterized by the fact that they often have actual plans to return to the country of origin within a reasonable time.

[corrected spelling denoted by square brackets. -ed.]