121. It should be noted, finally, that the legislation implementing the 1961 Convention was discussed in parliament in the mid-1980s. With regard to the former Article 6(1)b, the then State Secretary, Ms Korte-van Hemel, made the relevant statement that “the threeyear term should provide sufficient guarantee that it concerns children who will remain in the Netherlands. An unrestricted jus soli that is also applicable to persons travelling through the Netherlands is in my view not desirable”.170 This comment seems to reflect a common misconception: that rather than addressing only those cases of children born on the territory who would otherwise be stateless, Article 1 of the Convention establishes a general jus soli rule. But the Convention establishes no general requirement for jus soli or jus sanguinis. 122. Based on the 1961 Convention read in light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNHCR therefore recommends that the Netherlands adopt a more inclusive approach to the implementation of Article 1 of the 1961 Convention which pertains to grant of nationality to persons born on Dutch territory who would otherwise be stateless. It is recommended that such children should acquire Dutch nationality automatically, at least those children born to parents who are permanent residents. This would follow the practice of the majority of States Parties to the 1961 Convention. As the Dakar Summary Conclusions note, this Article permits States: “either [to] provide for automatic (ex lege, or by operation of law) acquisition of its nationality upon birth pursuant to Article 1(1)(a), or for acquisition of nationality upon submission of an application pursuant to Article 1(1)(b)”. … “A Contracting State may apply a combination of these alternatives for acquisition of its nationality by providing different modes of acquisition based on the level of attachment of the individual to that State. For example, a Contracting State might provide for automatic acquisition of its nationality by otherwise stateless children born in their territory whose parents are permanent or legal residents in the country, whereas it might require an application procedure for those whose parents are not legal residents. Any distinction in treatment of different groups, however, cannot be based on discriminatory grounds and must be reasonable and proportionate.”171 Case: Stateless child born in the Netherlands to a Sri Lankan mother A boy called Nalin was born in the Netherlands on 22 July 2001. His father was unknown, but his mother was from Sri Lanka and in possession of a Sri Lankan passport when she applied for asylum in the Netherlands. Her application was eventually rejected and she was forced to return to Sri Lanka. As a result of the mother’s serious psychiatric problems, the Office for Youth Care (Bureau Jeugdzorg) had already acquired custody over the child before the mother’s return to Sri Lanka. The mother had not registered Nalin with the Sri Lankan authorities (and had always refused to do so), but he was registered in the Municipal Basic Administration (GBA) as possessing Sri Lankan nationality. The boy obtained a regular residence at birth which was renewed regularly. Nalin lived with Dutch foster parents, but could not travel with his residence permit. The Office for Youth Care therefore tried actively to obtain a Dutch passport for him. The Office claimed 170 Handelingen Tweede Kamer of 27 March 1984, 1983–1984, p. 4024. 171  NHCR, “Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention and Preventing Statelessness among U Children”, Summary Conclusions, Expert Meeting, Dakar, Senegal, September 2011, paras. 20–21. in the Netherlands 49