The Morality of Maria Toet

Gender, Citizenship and the Construction of the Nation-State

Bibliographic Data

ID3621159
AuthorsBetty De Hart
Year2006
Volume32
Issue1
Pages49-68
Publication date2006-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueNew Community (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0047-9586 • E-ISSN: 1469-9451
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/13691830500335267
OpenAlexW2113772813
LanguageEN
Citations received20
References cited10

Until 1964, Dutch women who married a foreign national automatically lost their Dutch nationality. Until 1985 they could not pass on their Dutch nationality to their children. This article analyses political debates on the dependent status of women in nationality law. The development of the position of women in citizenship law cannot only be explained by patriarchal thinking; it was also fuelled by the wish to keep migrant men out. The Netherlands lagged behind other European countries in introducing gender equality in citizenship law because of the dominance of 'confessional opinions' with regard to family and morality until well after the Second World War. In the 1980s the desire for gender equality was trumped by the perceived need to protect the nation-state from marriages of convenience. This resulted in a 'levelling down': in 1985 gender equality was achieved by taking away the rights of migrant wives of Dutch men. The case of the nationality of married women shows that, for a better understanding of debates with regard to the nation-state, citizenship law and immigration law, both theoretical reflection and empirical research on the intersection of gender and ethnicity are essential. Keywords: Citizenship LawGenderNation-StateIntermarriage Notes 1. I have found references to Maria's case in Handelingen Tweede Kamer 1955, 1250; 1955-1956 B 4100, hfd IV, nr. 9, 7; Mulderije (1956 Mulderije, H. 1956. Vreemdelingenrecht Preadvies, Amsterdam: Mededelingen Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht. [Google Scholar]: 13). Her case was heard in the court case President rechtbank Den Haag 8 August 1995, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1955, 558. 2. Court Den Haag, 15 April 1969, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1969, 483. 3. Formal equality concerning the citizenship of married women, the attainment of citizenship by migrant women, and the citizenship of children was achieved in France in 1973, in Germany in 1975, in Great Britain in 1983, in Austria in 1986 and in Switzerland in 1992. Outside Europe, states had reformed much earlier. The Soviet Union was first to break with the unity of the family in citizenship law in 1918. The United States Cable Act of 1930 already stipulated the legal independence of women in citizenship law. 4. Two examples of the undesirability of the migrant husband: the refused admission of a former Dutch woman who had married a Chinese man in 1931, described in Wubben (1986 Wubben, H.J.J. 1986. Chineezen and Ander Aziatisch Ongedierte. Lotgevallen van Chinese migranten in Nederland 1911-1940, Amsterdam: Walburg Pers. [Google Scholar]: 86-7); the expulsion of a former Dutch woman who had married a German in 1948 and her children. High Court, 13 April 1948, NJ 1948, 647. 5. See Kantongerecht Den Haag 5 May 1956, NJ 1958, 23. This decision confirmed the Dutch citizenship of a woman married to a migrant, to enable her to vote. 6. The same law excluded the 'natives' of the former Dutch colony, the Dutch East Indies, from Dutch nationality. In 1901 they were granted the status of 'Dutch subject non-citizens' (Heijs 1995 Heijs, E. 1995. Van Vreemdeling tot Nederlander. De verlening van het Nederlanderschap aan vreemdelingen 1813-1992, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis. [Google Scholar]: 69-72). 7. Handelingen Eerste Kamer 1892-1893, 108. 8. Handelingen Eerste Kamer 1892-1893, 98-111. 9. Koninklijk Besluit 22 May 1943, S D16; KB 14 November 1945, F 278. 10. Tweede Kamer 1935-1936, Bijlagen 66-I. 11. Tweede Kamer 1935-1936, Bijlagen 66-2. Years later the law obtained retroactive effect after a court decision, Hof Den Haag 18 March 1954, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1954, 575. 12. Tweede Kamer 1962-1963, 6956. Memorie van Antwoord nr 8, ontwerp wijziging van de Wet op het Nederlanderschap en het ingezetenschap in verband met het huwelijk. Handelingen Tweede Kamer 1963-1964, 194-5. 13. Het Vaderland, 26 May 1965. 14. Wet van 26 October 1946, Appendix 235. Final report of the Commission of Reporters, Memorie van Antwoord, 21 October 1946. 15. Tweede Kamer 1955-1956, B4100, hfd IV 9, 7-13. 16. Eerste Kamer 1956-1957, B 4500, hfd IV, nr. 88, 5; 88a, nr. 6. 17. The historiography of the first wave of feminism in the Netherlands mainly describes the struggle for enfranchisement, equality in labour and marital law, and the issue of morality and prostitution. The struggle for equal treatment in citizenship law has not been described yet (Jansz and van Loosbroek 1985 Jansz, U. and van Loosbroek, T. 1985. "'Nieuwe literatuur over de eerste feministische golf: herschrijven van de geschiedenis'". In De Eerste Feministische Golf. Zesde jaarboek voor de vrouwengeschiedenis, Edited by: Reijs, J. 10-29. Nijmegen: SUN. [Google Scholar]). Citizenship law is mentioned as an issue in Posthumus-van der Groot and de Waal (1977 Posthumus-van der Groot, W.H. and de Waal, A. 1977. Van Moeder op Dochter. De maatschappelijke positie van de vrouw in Nederland vanaf de franse tijd, Nijmegen: SUN. [Google Scholar]: 216-18). 18. Nationale Vrouwenraad, Rapport van de commissie ingesteld door den Nationalen Vrouwenraad van Nederland ter bestudering van het vraagstuk der nationaliteit van de gehuwde vrouw, 1922. 19. Handelingen Tweede Kamer 1963-1964, 6956, 194-5. 20. Raad van State 12 September 1983, Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht 1984, 72; Hoge Raad 12 October 1984, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1985, 230. 21. European Commission, Family K and W v Netherlands no. 11278/84, 43 DR 216 (1985). 22. Tweede Kamer 1974-1975, 12 837 (R944) Memorie van Antwoord 30 June 1975, nr. 6. 23. Handelingen Eerste Kamer 1975-1976, 7 September 1976, 1258. 24. For migrants who are not married to a Dutch national, five years' residence is required. 25. Vaste commissie voor naturalisaties 23 January 1984, 45-10. 26. Vaste Commissie voor naturalisaties, 16 947, UCV 45. 27. Stichting LAWINE. Het optierecht op het Nederlanderschap, Amsterdam 1987. 28. Gem. Hof Nederlandse Antillen, 21 December 1999, NJ 2000, 247. Afdeling Rechtspraak Raad van State, 10 July 1998, Jurisprudentie Vreemdelingenrecht 1998/142. National Ombudsman 8 May 1990, nr. 90/R 302, Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht 1990, 51; Complaint National Ombudsman 1998/85; National Ombudsman 1997/103. 29. Tweede Kamer 1997-1998, 25 891, nr. 3, Memorie van Toelichting, p. 3. 30. See US Supreme Court Cases Miller v Allbright, 118 S Ct 1428 (1998) and Ngyuyen and Boulais 2001 v INS no. 99-2071. On the nationality status of women in Middle Eastern countries, see CRTD (2004 CRTD. 2004. Gender, Citizenship and Nationality Programme. Denial of Nationality: The Case of Arab Women, Beirut: Centre for Research and Training on Development, Summary of Regional Research. [Google Scholar]). Additional informationNotes on contributorsBetty de HartBetty de Hart is Senior Researcher in the Centre for Migration Law at the University of Nijmegen

Citizenship · Morality · Political science · Politics · Sociology · State (computer science · Gender Politics and Representation · Gender Studies · Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics · Labor Movements and Unions · Law

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access