Ancestors Naturalized before June 14, 1912

[zagnut]

For that matter, the absolute principle of jus sanguinis citizenship is also contrary to the loss of Italian citizenship to descendants of ancestors who naturalized prior to 1992. It was constrained by another principle- inability of an Italian citizen to hold more than one citizenship. The principle of jus sanguinis is only one thread in the fabric, its application is tempered by other factors- it has never overridden all other considerations.

[nfig1]

For that matter, the absolute principle of jus sanguinis citizenship is also contrary to the loss of Italian citizenship to descendants of ancestors who naturalized prior to 1992. It was constrained by another principle- inability of an Italian citizen to hold more than one citizenship. The principle of jus sanguinis is only one thread in the fabric, its application is tempered by other factors- it has never overridden all other considerations.

In that case then the 1912 law may as well be the 1992 law for the U.S.-born ancestor, because technically someone born there in 1882, for example, had dual citizenship by 1900 if the father had not yet naturalized.

Regardless, Mrs. Stone's summary of the law does point out the small window of opportunity for some applicants whose ancestor had naturalized before June 14, 1912, which is better than nothing. It is also more logical than simply denying Italian citizenship to a U.S.-born man of 40 whose 65-year old father decided to naturalize in 1911, where the choice of the latter to naturalize should in all fairness have nothing to do with his grown up son, etc.

[nfig1]

deleted

[nfig1]

Fino al 1912, invece, la perdita di cittadinanza del padre comportava in ogni caso la perdita della cittadinanza per il figlio minorenne.

To translate the part in bold: "Until 1912, instead, the loss of the father's citizenship resulted in any case in the loss of the citizenship for the minor son." That said, if the minor son can lose it, mustn't he have had it first in his possession to lose? According to the SF consulate: The law giving people born abroad to Italian parents who had not naturalized as US citizens came into effect in 1912. However, this cannot be the case based on the translation of the law just provided. If there was never any citizenship to give to the son, then there would not have been any citizenship to lose.

Therefore, I propose the following interpretation of the 1865/1912 laws: jus sanguinis still holds. A child born anywhere to an Italian father is Italian, unless the father naturalizes before 1912 and the child is still a minor at that time. This is a totally logical interpretation because it simultaneously upholds the doctrine of jus sanguinis and is also in keeping with the 1912 law. Despite this, I still cannot agree that an Italian son born to an Italian father can lose his citizenship since the son was born in a jus soli country and cannot naturalize. I accept other situations such as derived U.S. citizenship for minor children as an obvious loss of Italian citizenship since these children were not born in the U.S. and could naturalize potentially. But to simply apply the same broad stroke to minor children born in the U.S. who cannot naturalize is not a reasonable interpretation. According to the 1912 law quoted above, the U.S.-born minor child would have still had Italian citizenship at the time of his birth (otherwise there is nothing to "lose"). Since he cannot renounce it through naturalization, as it is theoretically impossible for him to naturalize as a natural born citizen, his Italian citizenship should remain untouched, unless he were to renounce it later as an adult of course.

Therefore, I propose a final and just interpretation of the 1865/1912 laws: jus sanguinis still holds. A child born anywhere to an Italian father is Italian, unless the father naturalizes before June 14, 1912, while the child is still a minor, and said child is not already a natural born citizen of the father's country of naturalization.

[zagnut]

Despite this, I still cannot agree that an Italian son born to an Italian father can lose his citizenship since the son was born in a jus soli country and cannot naturalize.

Unfortunately, it's the Italian government's interpretation, as spelled out in the Ministry of Interior guidance, that matters.

[nfig1]

Despite this, I still cannot agree that an Italian son born to an Italian father can lose his citizenship since the son was born in a jus soli country and cannot naturalize.

Unfortunately, it's the Italian government's interpretation, as spelled out in the Ministry of Interior guidance, that matters.

That's just it; the law is vague. "Until 1912, instead, the loss of the father's citizenship resulted in any case in the loss of the citizenship for the minor son...born where?" It is unclear whether it refers to all minor children or just those who can potentially naturalize. Thus, it is open to interpretation by the consulates how strictly they wish to view it. It is my contention that SF views it too narrowly, by including all minor children, even those who are natural born citizens for whom it is theoretically impossible to naturalize. The Ministry of Interior's wording is NOT what is on the SF website: that is simply SF's narrow interpretation of it, which no one challenges. Furthermore, the SF website makes no mention of adult children being an exception, which they should do at the very least.

[Tiffany]

Before then Italian citizenship could not be transmitted simply by being born abroad to an Italian father; the parent had to maintain Italilan citizenship until the child became an adult.(!) This changed in 1912, but does not govern previous situations.

She never says the child is not born as an Italian citizen, she said simply, meaning that there were extra requirements surrounding the birth abroad of a child of an Italian citizen father. Before 1912, Italian law was that the family followed their father's/husband's status - they were his responsibility and his possessions. This means that a child born to an Italian father was an Italian citizen like him, however it wasn't until after the age of majority or after 1912 that the citizenship was considered his own (and therefore could not be lost by his father). Before 1912, if the father lost that Italian citizenship, so did the children (and wife) whose citizenship depended upon his own. After 1912, they changed this for children and the citizenship they were born with remained theirs as long as they themselves did not naturalize. Their parents still had the right to make decisions for them if they were minors.

This all seems clear to me, but I would enjoy hearing the opinions of the experts.

She is the expert at the SF consulate. What she says goes. We're only armchair philosophers.

[nfig1]

I beg to differ. If the father hadn't naturalized beforehand, the adult child stays Italian, even if it's before 1912. For example, if the dad naturalizes say in 1911, and his son was born in 1892 (in the U.S.), the son is still Italian because he wasn't a minor at the time his father naturalized. If he had naturalized in 1909, whoops, the child was still a minor and ainsi vont les choses. Of course after 1912, the father could naturalize at any time after the birth of the child in question, and that child would have retained his Italian citizenship, etc.

Regarding "experts", it's a nice way of referring to anyone who feels he is knowledgable enough to offer his point of view, such as yourself, or me, or anyone else who has researched this topic and thought about it ad nauseam.

[Em]

Perhaps the consulate is viewing it not as naturalization, but simply as renunciation. In other words, they are saying that when the father naturalized in 1911, let's say, he made a conscious decision to give up Italian citizenship, and by doing so, he gave up that citizenship for his wife and all his minor children. They are not saying that the U.S. born children naturalized; only that the U.S. born children were subject to their father's decision to give up citizenship.

After 1912, the law specifically states that the U.S.-born (or other country with jus soli) minor child of an Italian man who naturalizes does not lose his Italian citizenship. In absence of that statement, they revert to the concept that all minor children lose what the father loses.
____

I edited my post to remove my conjecture regarding adult U.S.-born children of men who naturalized before 1912. Upon rereading the ruling, I realize that it only refers to minor children. It appears then that they are indeed saying the father of a minor child can renunciate for that child even though the child does not naturalize with him. This interpretation ends when it is specifically stated in 1912 that minor children who obtained another citizenship jus soli are not subject to their fathers' renunciation.

Although I don't like the interpretation, I do understand the logic.

[zagnut]

That's just it; the law is vague. "Until 1912, instead, the loss of the father's citizenship resulted in any case in the loss of the citizenship for the minor son...born where?" It is unclear whether it refers to all minor children or just those who can potentially naturalize.

It explicitly mentions jus soli cases and says "in ogni caso". See:

n buona sostanza, per la legge 555\1912, risultava rilevante che al momento della nascita sul territorio di uno Stato che attribuisse la cittadinanza secondo il principio dello ius soli, il soggetto (che deteneva anche la cittadinanza straniera per essere nato sul territorio di quello Stato) avesse il padre cittadino italiano. Se poi il padre fosse incorso nella perdita della cittadinanza italiana (ad esempio per naturalizzazione straniera), il figlio avrebbe comunque conservato lo status civitatis italiano.

Fino al 1912, invece, la perdita di cittadinanza del padre comportava in ogni caso la perdita della cittadinanza per il figlio minorenne.

The unpleasant reality is, the Italian government position as stated by the Ministry of Interior is material. If you are applying in SF or Argentina, those 2 consulates' positions are material. Whether we disagree or agree with their position is immaterial. Just as whether everyone on this board agrees with us or not is immaterial.

Not to say there's any harm in having a good moan now and then though. Just as long as we realize it's just a moan, and nothing more.

[Tiffany]

I beg to differ. If the father hadn't naturalized beforehand, the adult child stays Italian, even if it's before 1912. For example, if the dad naturalizes say in 1911, and his son was born in 1892 (in the U.S.), the son is still Italian because he wasn't a minor at the time his father naturalized. If he had naturalized in 1909, whoops, the child was still a minor and ainsi vont les choses. Of course after 1912, the father could naturalize at any time after the birth of the child in question, and that child would have retained his Italian citizenship, etc.

I think you misunderstood my reply, because this in no way contradicts anything I said.

And totally agreed zagnut

[Tiffany]

It appears then that they are indeed saying the father of a minor child can renunciate for that child even though the child does not naturalize with him. This interpretation ends when it is specifically stated in 1912 that minor children who obtained another citizenship jus soli are not subject to their fathers' renunciation.

Exactly, the father, as head of the household, held the status of his family with him. If he renounced, so did they. However, overage children where no longer by law considered part of his household and thus were not held to this. This changed in 1912 with the new specifications.

[antonio64]

Okay, I think I've finally got it, but just to be absolutely, positively sure:

First, no Italian consulate anywhere is saying that children born outside of Italy to Italian-citizen fathers before 1912 did not gain Italian citizenship at birth, right? It is accepted by all consulates that the child of a Italian father (i.e. a father who was born in Italy and had not lost his Italian citizenship through naturalization or other means) DID inherit Italian citizenship even before passage of the 1912 law, regardless of where on the planet they were born. Is this correct?

Second, the significance of the 1912 Nationality Law to the jure sanguinis question is that it marks the dividing line between the "old rules" (that a minor child loses his Italian citizenship when his father naturalizes) and the "new rules" (that a minor child retains his Italian citizenship when his father naturalizes). The "new rules" were spelled out in the 1912 law, which became active on June 14, 1912.

So the controversy over the "explicit retroactivity" of the 1912 law is whether children who were born prior to June 14 1912, and whose fathers naturalized after June 14 1912, but who were still minors when their fathers naturalized, are covered by the "old rules" or the "new rules." And so far, no Italian consulate is claiming that such children are covered by the "old rules." Is this correct?

Therefore, as of today, no Italian consulate, not even San Francisco, is claiming that a child born abroad to an Italian father before June 14 1912, who was still a minor when their father naturalized after June 14 1912, lost their Italian citizenship when their father naturalized. Right?

[zagnut]

Okay, I think I've finally got it, but just to be absolutely, positively sure:

First, no Italian consulate anywhere is saying that children born outside of Italy to Italian-citizen fathers before 1912 did not gain Italian citizenship at birth, right? It is accepted by all consulates that the child of a Italian father (i.e. a father who was born in Italy and had not lost his Italian citizenship through naturalization or other means) DID inherit Italian citizenship even before passage of the 1912 law, regardless of where on the planet they were born. Is this correct?

Correct, per 1865 Codice Civile.

Second, the significance of the 1912 Nationality Law to the jure sanguinis question is that it marks the dividing line between the "old rules" (that a minor child loses his Italian citizenship when his father naturalizes) and the "new rules" (that a minor child retains his Italian citizenship when his father naturalizes). The "new rules" were spelled out in the 1912 law, which became active on June 14, 1912.

Careful- if the minor child was born in Italy and the father naturalizes, the child loses Italian citizenship whether it's before or after 1912.

So the controversy over the "explicit retroactivity" of the 1912 law is whether children who were born prior to June 14 1912, and whose fathers naturalized after June 14 1912, but who were still minors when their fathers naturalized, are covered by the "old rules" or the "new rules." And so far, no Italian consulate is claiming that such children are covered by the "old rules." Is this correct?

No, we're talking about US born minors losing Italian citizenship when their fathers naturalized prior to 1912. After 1912, US born minors did not lose their Italian citizenship when father naturalized.

Therefore, as of today, no Italian consulate, not even San Francisco, is claiming that a child born abroad to an Italian father before June 14 1912, who was still a minor when their father naturalized after June 14 1912, lost their Italian citizenship when their father naturalized. Right?

Right

[Em]

Okay, I think I've finally got it, but just to be absolutely, positively sure:

Therefore, as of today, no Italian consulate, not even San Francisco, is claiming that a child born abroad to an Italian father before June 14 1912, who was still a minor when their father naturalized after June 14 1912, lost their Italian citizenship when their father naturalized. Right?

Right

I will only add that the child must have been born in a country that uses jus soli to determine citizenship. If not, his father's naturalization affects him as well.