The CDU's youth organization wants to reverse naturalization after 5 years.

It was a watershed moment in German immigration law when the deadlines for obtaining a German passport were significantly shortened. But while many applicants are only just beginning to compile their documents under these new regulations, dark clouds are already gathering on the political horizon. What seemed certain could soon be up for debate again. The debate surrounding "trust in the rule of law" and the "devaluation of the passport" has gained new momentum, which could have far-reaching consequences for thousands of people in Germany. If the political demands of the Young Union (the youth wing of the CDU/CSU) are heeded, we are facing nothing less than a reversal of course, which would make the path to a German passport considerably more difficult and lengthy for many . As a law firm specializing in visa law, we are observing these developments with great concern, as they directly threaten our clients' planning security.

The return to proven long-term thinking

At the heart of the current debate is the length of legal residence required for naturalization under Section 10 of the German Nationality Act (StAG) . The recently introduced reduction to a standard period of five years is facing intense criticism . Political actors argue that integration is a profound process that takes time. The demand to extend the waiting period to at least eight years is more than just a numbers game; it reflects a fundamental shift in understanding. We fear that artificially extending the waiting period will hinder, rather than encourage, the motivation for rapid integration. Those who are already economically and socially secure after five years often perceive an additional three-year waiting period as an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle that weakens rather than strengthens their sense of belonging.

Language as a barrier instead of a bridge

Another critical point in the current reform proposals concerns the language proficiency requirements. While previously, level B1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages was generally sufficient for naturalization , a tightening to level B2 is now being demanded . For us as lawyers, the question of proportionality arises here. Level B1 already certifies sufficient communication in everyday life and at work. Raising the standard to B2 would mean that applicants would have to understand complex texts and express themselves spontaneously and fluently on abstract topics. This would create an enormous hurdle, especially for older citizens or people in manual trades who do not deal with complex written language on a daily basis. Furthermore, revoking existing exceptions could lead to individuals who make valuable contributions to society despite language barriers being permanently excluded from citizenship .

The examination of values and the commitment to the constitutional order

A particularly sensitive aspect of the planned tightening of regulations is the so-called values test . While a commitment to the free democratic basic order is already a mandatory requirement under Section 10 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the German Nationality Act (StAG) , the demands for a "more effective test" aim at a more in-depth ideological examination. This involves explicit commitments to gender equality and a clear rejection of antisemitism and racism. We believe it is legally required that applicants share our core values. At the same time, however, we warn against vague testing procedures that could leave room for arbitrariness . Naturalization must not depend on the subjective assessments of government employees, but must be measured against clear, objective criteria in order to uphold the rule-of-law principles of predictability and equal treatment.

Sanctions against irregular migration under nationality law

Particularly far-reaching is the demand to drastically restrict naturalization for individuals who initially entered the country illegally or enjoy protected status. The desire to prevent so-called "track changes"—that is, the transition from a humanitarian residence permit to a residence permit for the purpose of employment, followed by naturalization— deeply impacts the life plans of many people . If the mode of entry is to permanently serve as an exclusion criterion for citizenship, this would permanently relegate a group of people to second-class citizens, regardless of their subsequent integration efforts. This contradicts the principle that successful integration and law-abiding behavior should be rewarded. As a law firm, we see considerable potential for conflict here with the concept of resocialization and fair participation in society.

Conclusion: A plea for consistency and a sense of proportion.

In summary, the current political debate has the potential to reverse much of the hard-won modernization of citizenship law . Increasing waiting periods, tightening language requirements, and restricting pathways out of the asylum system would significantly raise the hurdles to acquiring German citizenship. We advise all clients who currently meet the requirements for naturalization to submit their applications promptly and with thorough preparation. The window of opportunity for liberal regulations could close faster than many would like, under the influence of new political majorities. A stable legal system requires consistency; constant shifts in citizenship law ultimately harm not only those affected but also social cohesion in Germany.