Interior Minister Dobrindt criticizes State Office for Immigration (LEA) for online naturalizations

Naturalization is not merely an administrative act, but a significant step on the path to belonging in a democratic society. This makes the current debate about the complete digitalization of naturalization procedures all the more sensitive —triggered by criticism from Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt of the Berlin practice .

What is at stake?

In Berlin, naturalization applications can now be submitted entirely digitally. This speeds up the process and makes it possible to process a large number of applications with limited resources – according to current figures, 40,000 naturalizations are expected in Berlin alone this year . However, Interior Minister Dobrindt warns: Naturalization is an act with profound social significance that cannot be performed without a personal appearance. The minister demands that applicants credibly and personally demonstrate their loyalty to the free and democratic basic order – not just with a mouse click.

Legally, this discussion is entirely justified. The Nationality Act (Section 10, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, No. 1 and Section 16, Sentence 2 of the Nationality Act) requires not only the formal fulfillment of criteria such as residence, livelihood, or language skills, but also an active commitment to the constitution (the so-called declaration of loyalty ) . Digital confirmation alone may not be sufficient here. What's needed—at least in crucial situations—is a personal assessment, a conversation, and a moment of trust. This, at least, appears to be the view of the CDU and Interior Minister Dobrindt.

Digital opportunities – but please with a sense of proportion

Despite legitimate concerns, the need for digital solutions in migration and naturalization administration is real. Skilled labor shortages, high caseloads, and overburdened authorities necessitate more efficient processes. Modern tools can provide useful support here, for example, through:

• digital appointment scheduling with prioritization according to urgency,

• automated document review with human follow-up,

• low-barrier application systems with AI-supported language assistance,

• digital advice via chatbot (with clear boundaries).

However, these systems must not replace the rule of law, but rather support it. A hybrid process—that is, combining digital elements with human responsibility—can ensure both efficiency and fairness.

Engelhard Mazanke defends LEA's course

Accordingly, LEA head Engelhard Mazanke defends the course Berlin has chosen, pointing to the need for modern administrative management . According to Mazanke, the target of 40,000 naturalizations is a conscious "management decision" to efficiently reduce the years-long backlog. Unlike other federal states, Berlin has now dispensed with personal appearances - a step which, in Mazanke's opinion, is not only legally permissible but also organizationally necessary. He rejected the accusation that this would result in naturalizations being carried out illegally or superficially. Commitment to the German constitution is an inner attitude that does not change if an application is submitted digitally instead of in person . For Mazanke, one thing is clear: efficiency and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive - provided the process is clearly structured, digitally traceable and legally secure.

Conclusion: Technology as a tool, not as a replacement

The debate surrounding the digital naturalization process shows that this isn't about rejecting technology, but about fundamental principles. Naturalization is more than a checkmark on an online form—it's an expression of democratic participation. Those who want to be part of the process must be heard. The course taken by the Berlin State Office for Immigration (LEA) is correct and necessary to reduce the gigantic backlog of naturalization applications. Naturalization is a right of applicants, and administrative inefficiency is thwarting this right. Digitalization can therefore help foreigners obtain the naturalization they deserve. Anything else is unworthy of a constitutional state.