An IMGW News Editorial
Germany’s record-breaking naturalisation of nearly 292,000 people in 2024 is being celebrated across Europe as a milestone in integration. Driven largely by humanitarian migration, the new citizens – most notably Syrians, Turks, Iraqis, Russians, and Afghans – were granted German nationality under legal frameworks grounded in compassion and family reunification.
“Today it’s citizenship, Tomorrow it could be taxation.”
These are noble considerations, and the EU should be proud of its capacity to provide refuge and permanence to the displaced. But one cannot help but notice the widening gap between the moral high ground claimed in such cases, and the punitive treatment reserved for economically driven migration mechanisms, particularly Malta’s now-defunct citizenship-by-investment (CBI) programme.
“For a Union that claims to value both inclusion and subsidiarity, this is more than a policy contradiction. It is a credibility test”
On 29 April 2025, the European Court of Justice ruled against Malta, declaring that its investment migration framework violated EU law for failing to ensure a “genuine link” between new citizens and the country. The ruling followed years of pressure from Brussels, which framed the scheme as a commodification of EU citizenship.
Yet the numbers and context invite a different reading. Germany naturalised more than 83,000 Syrians in one year alone—many after only 7.4 years of residence. Russian naturalisations increased sixfold in the same period. Germany welcomed 291,955 new citizens in 2024, marking a notable 46% increase from the previous year and setting a record high since 2000. (Source: Federal Statistical Office, Germany [Destatis]).
Meanwhile, Malta’s programme, which has generated over €1.4 billion in public revenue since 2015, produced just a few hundred highly vetted citizens annually, all subjected to a stringent, multi-tiered due diligence process.
Dr Christian Kälin, Chairman of Henley & Partners, was blunt in his assessment: “Malta is creating a few hundred highly qualified EU citizens… while the EU is allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal and often undocumented migrants to enter.” The message from Brussels appears to be that discretion in humanitarian naturalisation is to be applauded – while discretion tied to investment and economic contribution is not.
The ruling also raises deeper legal and political concerns. As Advocate General Collins previously noted in his opinion, which the Court ultimately ignored, citizenship remains a sovereign matter under EU law. Critics now warn of mission creep: “Today it’s citizenship,” said Dr Niklas Schmidt, an Austrian expert in immigration law. “Tomorrow it could be taxation.”
Malta’s government has pledged to comply with the ruling, while defending its past decisions. Deputy Prime Minister Ian Borg reaffirmed that the programme helped fund critical infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social housing. And though the Court’s decision must be respected, many within the sector see it less as a triumph of principle than as a politically expedient gesture.
Indeed, Germany’s numbers tell us that citizenship can still be awarded rapidly and at scale, as long as it aligns with prevailing political narratives. That may be understandable, but it also exposes the EU’s double standards. Malta was punished not for failing to vet, but for daring to monetise what others give away for free.
A truly consistent EU policy on citizenship would recognise multiple paths – humanitarian, merit-based, economic – as legitimate, provided they are transparent and uphold rule-of-law principles. Europe cannot credibly support mass naturalisations while condemning structured, legal, and economically beneficial programmes that help small states stay afloat.
For a Union that claims to value both inclusion and subsidiarity, this is more than a policy contradiction. It is a credibility test.
