Meijers Committee standing committee of experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law receive the 3/5 majority required for a constitutional amendment. Thus, the 1996 rule in Article 25 Code Civil with the amendment of 2006 is still in force. Recent debate in Germany In Germany, the debate on the issue has been spurred by the amendment, in 2019, of the Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz (StAG) introducing the possibility to withdraw the German nationality of dual nationals who have been actively involved with terrorist militia abroad (see paragraph 3). The debate has largely taken place in the context of a hearing of experts organised by the Home Affairs Committee (Ausschuss für Inneres und Heimat) of the German Bundestag.57 Arguments against the new ground for loss of German nationality mostly focused on the need to avoid second-class citizenship. Opponents of the new provision have argued that it introduces a difference in treatment between dual and single nationals whereby German citizenship is made conditional for dual nationals only. This conditionality is lifelong as the law does not limit the period during which citizenship can be withdrawn (e.g. up to 15 years after naturalisation, as in the case of France).58 It has also been pointed out that most dual nationals in Germany are immigrants or children of immigrants.59 Critics have argued that while the new provision may be compatible with international standards against statelessness, this does not mean that it is also compatible with the prohibition of discrimination. These critics put forward that the differential treatment of dual and single nationals is not justified because only dual nationals may be deprived of their German nationality, whereas terrorist acts may be perpetrated by dual and single nationals alike.60 Finally, it is recalled that the Bundesverfassungsgericht has called for particular prudence to be exercised when distinctions are drawn between different groups of citizens and attention has been drawn to the potentially negative effects of such distinctions on integration.61 On the other hand, experts arguing in favour of the new provision claimed that the distinction between single and dual nationals would not amount to discrimination. They argued that single and dual nationals do not find themselves in relevantly similar situations as the possession of a second nationality constitutes a relevant difference and dual nationals would not become stateless upon withdrawal of their German nationality.62 One expert argued that 57 Deutscher Bundestag, Ausschuss für Inneres und Heimat, Protokoll der 61. Sitzung vom 24. Juni 2019 (BTDrucksache 19/61) available at https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/654804/31c6d1554445463979141f092a7f4159/Protokoll-24-062019-data.pdf. 58 K.F. Gärditz & A. Wallrabenstein, ‘Staatsangehörigkeit in Geiselhaft’, Verfassungsblog 16 June 2019. 59 Gärditz & Wallrabenstein 2019. 60 Expert opinion by T. Tabbara presented to the Deutscher Bundestag on 24 June 2019, see footnote 57. 61 Tabbara 2019, referring to BVerfG 116, 24-69. 62 Expert opinions by U. Vosgerau and W. Kluth presented to the Deutscher Bundestag on 24 June 2019, see footnote 57. 11