Older people, people with disabilities, single parents and family carers

We assess your naturalisation route even with a low pension, disability or extensive care responsibilities; these circumstances do not rule out naturalisation from the outset. However, they do not automatically mean that all requirements are waived either. Nationality law takes personal limitations into account in several areas: language and civic knowledge, certain exceptions to the livelihood requirement, and discretionary naturalisation on grounds of particular hardship. The crucial task is to match the actual burden to the appropriate statutory provision.

People facing particular burdens often experience several difficulties at once. Someone caring for a relative may have less time for paid work and language courses. An illness may affect both income and learning. In legal terms, however, these remain different questions with different requirements.

First, we assess whether you already meet the general naturalisation requirements. A person with a disability may be employed and have all the required knowledge. A pensioner may be able to meet their needs through their pension and assets. In such cases, no exception is needed for these aspects. We do not prematurely make a diagnosis or age the focus of the entire application.

For each requirement that is actually missing, we then establish whether an express statutory concession applies. Third, another route to naturalisation involving a hardship decision may be available. An exemption from providing evidence of language proficiency does not, for example, automatically resolve a problem with livelihood. The fundamental requirements and exceptions are set out in § 10 StAG; discretionary naturalisation is governed by § 8 StAG.

§ 10(6) StAG provides for the language and knowledge requirements to be waived if they cannot be met because of a physical, intellectual or mental illness or disability, or because of age. Where the conditions are met, this is more than an informal request for leniency. What matters is the connection required by law between the impairment and the inability to acquire or demonstrate the knowledge.

Not every illness meets this condition. A physical limitation may make travelling to the examination venue difficult while leaving learning and knowledge unaffected. Appropriate examination arrangements or practical assistance may then be relevant in the first instance. The position may be different where there are significant cognitive impairments, certain mental illnesses or severe communication impairments. The specific effect remains decisive, rather than the diagnostic label alone.

A severely disabled person's pass does not necessarily establish whether B1 language skills or civic knowledge can be acquired. It proves an officially recognised status, but does not always replace an explanation of the functional consequences. Conversely, the language exemption does not invariably require a particular assessed degree of disability. Its statutory basis concerns the actual inability to meet the requirement.

We check whether the medical evidence clearly explains the impairment and why it prevents the particular requirement from being met. We look for information on duration, course, affected abilities and prognosis. A short certificate merely stating that the person cannot pass a language test often leaves the crucial connections unexplained.

The aim is not to submit as many sensitive medical records as possible without any structure. The medical information should answer the legally relevant question. Suitable professional evidence may, for example, explain whether memory, concentration, reading, writing, language processing or oral communication are impaired. Where an illness fluctuates, it is also important to establish which abilities are affected permanently and which only temporarily.

The authority makes the legal decision; the treating professional describes the medical facts. We keep these roles clearly separate. The article on illness, disability and age-related limitations examines the evidence required in greater detail.

Conversely, the exemption must not be refused solely because the person might have been able to learn earlier in life. What matters is the inability that exists at the time of the decision. Earlier opportunities to learn that were not taken up must not be used as a blanket objection to an exemption now required because of illness, disability or age.

This exemption concerns the current ability to meet the language and knowledge requirements. That does not mean that earlier opportunities for employment are always irrelevant in a separate assessment of financial hardship. Nor must someone who qualifies for a full health-related exemption nevertheless attain a lower language level as a substitute. The decisive issue remains which requirement cannot be met as a result of the specific impairment.

Separate concessions also apply to certain members of the guest worker and contract worker generations, and to spouses who joined them in connection with that immigration. They cover the entries described by law under recruitment agreements into the Federal Republic by 30 June 1974, or as contract workers into the GDR by 13 June 1990. Advanced age or entry before the cut-off date alone is not enough. For those covered, being able to communicate orally in everyday life without significant problems is sufficient; the civic knowledge requirement is waived. The detailed article on guest workers and contract workers explains how the immigration history and a spouse's subsequent arrival can be documented.

In addition to the full exemption on grounds of illness, disability or age, § 10(4a) StAG provides another option. Under this provision, the language requirement may be limited to sufficient oral communication in everyday life to avoid hardship. The condition is that acquiring the normally required skills is impossible or substantially more difficult on a lasting basis, despite serious and sustained efforts.

This provision must be distinguished particularly carefully from § 10(6). Someone who demonstrates an illness-related inability does not instead have to construct an inapplicable account of repeated attempts at courses. For the language hardship provision, we present actual learning efforts and remaining obstacles. The requirements are reduced; the ability to communicate orally in everyday life remains necessary here. Where this hardship provision applies, the knowledge requirement is also waived in accordance with the law.

Caring responsibilities may be significant for opportunities to learn. A lack of time alone, however, is not necessarily sufficient. Relevant factors include the intensity and duration of the responsibilities and the realistic opportunities to obtain relief or use suitable learning provision. The article on particular learning difficulties and evidence of hardship explores this separate assessment in greater depth.

An old-age pension or reduced earning capacity pension is not detrimental simply because it is paid by a public body. Pensions are treated differently from benefits under SGB II or SGB XII. Someone able to meet their needs through a pension, other reliable resources and, where applicable, support from a relative with a maintenance obligation does not also have to work simply to be eligible in principle for naturalisation.

Supplementary basic income support in old age or on grounds of reduced earning capacity under SGB XII requires a different assessment. Benefits under SGB II also fall within the general livelihood provision in § 10 StAG. Since 1 July 2026, the benefit under § 19 SGB II has been called “Grundsicherungsgeld”. Authorities may continue to use “Bürgergeld” until the end of 2026. Both points are set out in the Federal Employment Agency's official SGB II compilation.

We therefore examine the legal basis of your benefit decision. Long-term care insurance benefits, pensions and basic income support are not interchangeable terms. For earmarked benefits, it is also necessary to examine which needs they actually meet; not every payment is freely available for general living expenses. A realistic overview records income, housing costs, health insurance and maintenance obligations.

§ 10 StAG contains certain express exceptions to the general financial requirement. These currently include people in full-time employment who have worked full-time for at least 20 of the past 24 months. A further exception concerns, subject to the statutory conditions, spouses or registered civil partners who live as a family with a person employed in this way and a minor child.

For parents with childcare responsibilities in particular, it is important to understand that this partner exception is tied to specific conditions. It does not automatically cover all single parents, every unmarried partnership or every household with a child. If the person providing care meets the full-time employment conditions themselves, their own exception may instead be relevant. We therefore assess these conditions for each person separately.

A further exception exists for the guest workers, contract workers and spouses who joined them covered by the law, where they are not responsible for receiving the benefits concerned. For applications submitted on or before 23 August 2023, § 40a StAG may also result in more favourable earlier rules being applied. This is limited protection concerning the livelihood requirement, rather than a general continuation of all former naturalisation rules.

Where no express exception applies, discretionary naturalisation under § 8 StAG may be possible, with the financial requirement waived on grounds of particular hardship. This may be relevant, among others, to people with illnesses or disabilities, pension recipients, single parents, family carers and people in education or training. The decisive question is whether the person has used the opportunities available to support themselves within what is objectively possible and personally reasonable.

This does not mean that everyone in one of these groups is automatically naturalised. A clear assessment of the specific limitation and its effect on livelihood is required. Equally, the account must not stop at establishing that basic income support is being received. The reasons why further employment is impossible or unreasonable are central to the hardship assessment.

For your family, we also assess the consequences for the children separately. The Federal Ministry of the Interior's application guidance provides for the financial requirement to be waived when minor children are naturalised together with a parent who meets the hardship conditions in § 8(2). There is also a different administrative rule for children of a parent covered by § 10(1), sentence 1, no. 3(c). The overview concerning children explains which situation is applicable. Being a single parent alone does not create eligibility for the spouse exception.

The other requirements for discretionary naturalisation must still be considered independently. Identity, lawful habitual residence and further requirements do not disappear with the financial exception. The article on particular hardship and discretionary naturalisation explains how these interact.

For single parents, childcare hours and opportunities for employment may be closely connected. Marital status alone is not decisive for the assessment. Relevant factors include the child's age and specific care needs, available childcare, working hours, travel times and the other parent's actual involvement. A childcare place available in principle is of little help if it does not cover the actual working hours.

Childcare contracts, opening hours, documented enquiries about places and, where appropriate, evidence of particular support needs may be useful. We also clearly present maintenance payments and missing maintenance. The purpose is not to list every everyday burden individually, but to make the connection between necessary childcare and financial opportunities understandable.

We also assess your child's naturalisation options separately. A financial obstacle affecting the parent does not automatically answer every question about the child's own entitlement or possible naturalisation together with a parent. Family applications can be prepared together, but remain legally specific to each person. If adulthood is approaching, we carry out this assessment early.

For care provided at home, stating the assessed care level alone is often insufficient to explain the restriction on employment. It is also important to identify which tasks the applicant actually performs: daily care, supervision, accompanying someone to treatment or providing unpredictable assistance can have very different effects on the time available. Care assessment decisions and a factual description of everyday life therefore complement each other.

Available support services and whether they can actually be used also form part of the assessment. The mere existence of a care service in the area does not prove that the necessary care is available and affordable. We include support actually used and remaining work opportunities. An honest overall account makes it possible to assess what is reasonable in the particular household.

Caring responsibilities may create both financial hardship and a barrier to language acquisition. The evidence may be explained together, but the legal consequences remain separate. Granting a financial exception does not automatically bring a language concession, and vice versa.

We clarify with you early on what support you need with reading, writing or appointments. A disability does not automatically mean that someone lacks the capacity to act in the proceedings. Nor does having a court-appointed legal guardian generally deprive a person of the ability to take procedural steps themselves. What matters is the specific statutory framework in § 34 StAG and, where applicable, the scope of representation or of any requirement for the guardian's consent.

Using the documents, we present existing abilities and resources as clearly as limitations. A mere collection of medical or social difficulties often leaves their legal relevance unexplained.

Fees can also present a practical obstacle. Subject to the statutory conditions, § 38(4) StAG allows a reduction or exemption on grounds of equity or public interest. A low pension does not automatically suffice; we explain your finances in the request. The key remains preparation that provides specific evidence of personal burdens and identifies the appropriate legal consequence for each.