question regarding jure sanguinis

Over 25 million Italians have emigrated between 1861 and 1960 with a migration boom between 1871 and 1915 when over 13,5 million emigrants left the country for European and overseas destinations.
OpusReticulatum
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 51
Joined: 30 Dec 2015, 18:16

Re: question regarding jure sanguinis

Post by OpusReticulatum »

mler: That was a great reply and explanation of the matter. Thank you!
jennabet wrote: 04 Aug 2017, 22:55 houghts on one upmanship but was not able to so I apologize for those comments. But I also don't think it's right that you accuse the Italian state of discrimination because you don't meet the requirements of the law on either side.
jennabet: Thank you, apology accepted. I understand the tendency to write a strongly worded response, and then tone it down upon revision. :)

mler's response is precisely what I was referring to. I'm not calling Italy or the Italian government discriminatory. However, even in an overall just society, some laws are not always just, and sometimes they do discriminate (Jim Crow, women not being allowed to vote, etc.). However, I believe (and the Courts have seemed to agree) that that law, specifically, is discriminatory.

This is what the Courts have said:

"Le norme precostituzionali riconosciute illegittime per effetto di sentenze
del giudice della legge sono inapplicabili e non hanno più effetto dal 1 gennaio
1948 sui rapporti su cui ancora incidono, se permanga la discriminazione delle
persone per il loro sesso o la preminenza del marito nei rapporti familiari, sempre
che vi sia una persona sulla quale determinano ancora conseguenze ingiuste, ma
giustiziabili, cioè tutelabili in sede giurisdizionale. "

You'll find that paragraph in just about every sentenza issued in a 1948 decision. There are a couple of other places in the sentenze that also refer the particular law in question (or its effects) as discriminatory or unjust.



Here's an example that might help to demonstrate why the 1948 law is discriminatory.

Imagine the following scenario. Vittorio and Paola, a married couple, come to the United States in 1921.

In 1922 they have a daughter, Giuliana
In 1924 they have a son, Tommaso
In 1926 they have another daughter, Rosa


Vittorio and Paola become US citizens in 1935

Since all three children are born in the US before their parents have naturalized, they all have both US and Italian citizenship.

All three children are married by 1946 (let's say they all married Italians from Italy who naturalized as US citizens prior to marriage).

Giuliana has a son in 1944.
Tommaso has a son in 1946.
Renata has a daughter in 1947.

According to the current 1948 law, even though all three of the children born between 1944 and 1947 were born to Italian citizens, only one, Tommaso's son, can inherit Italian citizenship from his parent. And the only reason why the Tommaso's son can have Italian citizenship and the other two children cannot, is because he was born to a male, and the other two were born to females.

Everything in the chain of descent is identical for the three children, yet only one can obtain citizenship. However, there's one change (and once change only) that could have made the other two children eligible: if Giuliana and Renata had been Giuliano and Renato instead.
User avatar
sceaminmonkey
Master
Master
Posts: 525
Joined: 12 Sep 2010, 19:39

Re: question regarding jure sanguinis

Post by sceaminmonkey »

The assumption for many of these laws is that most people were aware of them at the time which is why the discriminatory 1948 law is still affecting people. It is unfair considering no one probably went over and told women you lose your citizenship because you fell in love and got married to a foreigner. We have these jus sanguinis laws because of Italy's strong emphasis on " the family" which women are part of.
User avatar
mler
Master
Master
Posts: 2504
Joined: 01 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: question regarding jure sanguinis

Post by mler »

Actually, this post is not about loss of citizenship through marriage because they didn't. Rather it refers to the inability of a woman to pass citizenship to her children before the 1948 law was enacted. The courts seem to be taking care if this, but it's unfortunate that the law was not specifically retroactive.
mlucarelli
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 04:42

Re: question regarding jure sanguinis

Post by mlucarelli »

Hi all! I realize this was posted awhile ago, but I just figured out that my great-grandmother falls in this category of having been naturalized pre-cable act in 1921 when she married my great-grandfather. My great grandfather was also Italian born, but he renounced when he became a US Citizen in 1918 vía his service in the military. My grandfather was born 1923, so I knew that from my great-grandfather I was ineligible. I for the life I’d me couldn’t figure out when my great-grandmother naturalized but finally found her 1920 census records which are filed with a typo that show her as an “alien” and by 1930 she’s marked as “naturalized.” So my understanding from this post is that my great-grandmother who became automatically naturalized when she married my great-grandfather in 1921, passed on her citizenship to my grandfather when he was born in 1923, him to my father, and my father to me.

However, it appears I have to file something in court about this. Can anyone provide any guidance on how I would submit for citizenship via this route?
User avatar
mler
Master
Master
Posts: 2504
Joined: 01 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: question regarding jure sanguinis

Post by mler »

Read through the extensive 1948 thread. You should find some guidance there.
Post Reply