Ongoing coalition negotiations in Germany involving the conservative Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) are centered around immigration and integration policies.

A draft document suggests potential reforms to citizenship laws designed to enhance national security.

Among the proposed amendments is the possibility of revoking German citizenship for individuals deemed 'terror supporters,' 'antisemites,' and extremists advocating the dismantlement of the democratic order, conditional upon their possession of a second nationality.

SPD member Dirk Wiese characterized the proposal as a triumph for the SPD, highlighting their achievement in preserving the option for dual citizenship.

The CDU/CSU previously aimed to restrict the rights of dual nationals, arguing for citizenship revocation under specific circumstances.

Some SPD members caution that the proposal may inadvertently foster unequal treatment among citizens, raising critical questions regarding the value of citizenship for dual nationals.

The proposed amendments have elicited responses from various societal sectors.

Bremen Mayor Andreas Bovenschulte emphasized the potential disenfranchisement affecting the approximately five million dual citizens in Germany, warning that such measures might create a sense of inferior citizenship status among these individuals.

Critics across the political spectrum argue that the proposed legislation risks institutionalizing a 'two-class citizenship law.' Clara Bünger of the Left Party has spoken out against the implications that such definitions may impose on notions of citizenship and belonging within Germany's diverse populace, advocating for transparency in citizenship laws and equal rights for all residents.

Under current law, citizenship can be revoked in certain cases, particularly for individuals involved with designated terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, as long as they hold another nationality.

The CDU/CSU's push for tightening regulations has involved calls to deport dual nationals found guilty of criminal activities.

The draft seeks to redefine the legal terms 'antisemite' and 'terror supporter,' which may raise challenges concerning legal interpretation and enforcement.

While German criminal law addresses antisemitism primarily under hate speech statutes, it lacks a dedicated legal definition as an independent offense.

The proposed amendments could create discrepancies in how dual nationals are treated compared to those holding solely German citizenship.

Observers indicate that this approach may disproportionately affect individuals from Arab or Muslim backgrounds.

The Bundestag has reiterated its commitment to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism, which includes various indicators of antisemitic conduct.

This definition has faced criticism concerning its breadth and potential implications for free speech and academic inquiry.

Germany's fundamental law enshrines citizenship rights; however, exceptions permit the revocation of citizenship, particularly for individuals linked to terrorist organizations.

Some members of the Jewish community and experts in Jewish studies have expressed deep concern that such citizenship withdrawal measures could serve as a means of exclusion, prompting reflections on historical injustices reminiscent of the Nazi era.

Furthermore, there are increasing worries about the potential influence of far-right populism in shaping policy, particularly from the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has gained electoral ground in recent elections.

The possibility of demographic and political changes normalizing fascistic ideologies and the subsequent stigmatization of certain groups add to the complexity of the discourse.

The draft proposal is pending a constitutional review, and uncertainty remains over the mechanisms by which alleged offenders would be identified and prosecuted.

Legal authorities have taken a cautious stance, with some SPD members expressing skepticism regarding the proposal's viability under judicial review, though individuals potentially affected by these changes remain apprehensive.