Understanding the Proposed Italian Citizenship Reforms: A Scholarly Analysis

Author: Abogado Guillermo Iso

The principle of iure sanguinis, the "right of blood," although originally introduced by the Napoleonic Civil Code, was then received by the Italian Civil Code of 1865 and ever since has historically formed a cornerstone of Italian citizenship law. This principle is deeply rooted in the nation's history of emigration and its desire to maintain ties with its overseas diaspora, in order to overcome a local environment that was often hostile to the preservation of the Italian language and culture and more prone to homogenize Italian immigrants into an English, Spanish, or Portuguese language culture.

This principle, which grants citizenship to individuals born to Italian parents, reflects Italy's unique demographic experience and its enduring connection to the millions of Italians and their descendants who emigrated across the globe and who, despite all obstacles, proved resilient to total absorption by the countries where they prospered.

Law 91/1992, the current framework for Italian citizenship, codified this principle, providing a relatively straightforward path for individuals of Italian descent to claim their heritage. However, the recent enactment of Decree Law 36/2025 introduces a significant and, therefore deeply problematic shift in this long-standing tradition.

Decree Law 36/2025, enacted on March 28, 2025, and in the process of conversion into Law 1432, represents a radical change. Decree Laws in the Italian legal system are provisional measures with the force of law, enacted by the government in cases of "extraordinary necessity and urgency" (Article 77 of the Italian Constitution).

To become permanent, they must be converted into ordinary law by the Italian Parliament within sixty days of their publication. This process allows for a reduced parliamentary debate (compared to ordinary law projects) and potential amendments, but the initial entry into force of the decree law creates immediate legal effects.

The stated purpose of Decree Law 36/2025, according to the government, was to address the increasing number of citizenship applications, reduce the backlog at consulates, and strengthen the "effective link" between the Italian state and its citizens. However, the legislation, now Law 1432, goes much further, fundamentally altering the conditions under which citizenship by descent can be claimed.

This article will analyze the provisions of the project of Law 1432, critically examining its compatibility with the Italian Constitution, Italian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) jurisprudence, and European Union law. It will argue that the new legislation raises serious legal and constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the principles of iure sanguinis, legitimate expectation, non-retroactivity, and equality.

The article will also assess the impact of these changes on individuals of Italian descent, including young professionals who have moved within the EU, and on Italy's relationship with its diaspora. Furthermore, it will address the negative economic impact on Italian root tourism and trade, and the potential influence of political prejudice on this reform.

Analysis of the Project of Law 1432

The project of Law 1432, already approved by the Senate and awaiting a similar process of approval by the Camera dei Deputati, while ostensibly aimed at streamlining the citizenship application process, introduces substantive changes that fundamentally alter the landscape of Italian citizenship by descent. These changes can be categorized into three main areas: generational limitations, the introduction of an "effective link" requirement, and new procedural rules.

Summary of Law 1432:

Law 1432 introduces a significant limitation on the transmission of citizenship iure sanguinis by restricting it to a maximum of two generations. This means that only individuals with at least one parent or grandparent born in Italy and held only Italian citizenship throughout their life are automatically eligible for citizenship. The law also requires that this second-generation ascendant never naturalized, removing the right to transmission to those whose Italian citizenship coexisted or was compatible with an additional citizenship, like the one of the country of reception.

Descendants beyond the second generation face significantly greater hurdles. The law also introduces the concept of an "effective link" to Italy, though the specific criteria for demonstrating this link are subject to further clarification and implementation. The legislation also centralizes the application process, removing some authority from the Consulates, although, for this to take place, no budgetary provisions nor personnel allocation nor real estate assignment of office space has been made, which would be fundamental to this significant change.

Comparison with Previous Law:

Prior to Law 1432, Italian citizenship by descent, under Law 91/1992, was based on an unbroken line of Italian ancestry, with no generational limit. While some practical difficulties and evidentiary requirements existed, the fundamental principle was that if an ancestor was an Italian citizen at the time of their child’s birth abroad (or until the child reached the age of majority if born in Italy), their descendants, regardless of how many generations removed, could claim citizenship once proving with documents their lineage in a Consulate, Municipality, or in a court of Law.

Law 1432 represents a radical departure from this principle, imposing a strict generational limit that severs the citizenship link for many individuals of Italian descent. This represents a fundamental shift, moving away from a purely bloodline-based system towards one that incorporates elements of ius soli (right of the soil) and a requirement of demonstrated connection to Italy.

Legal and Constitutional Issues:

Law 1432, in its current shape and form before passing through the Camera dei Deputati, raises a number of serious legal and constitutional issues under Italian law, European Union law, and fundamental principles of international law. As an attorney, I believe the following points warrant particular attention:

• Iure Sanguinis and its Constitutional Basis: The principle of iure sanguinis is not explicitly mentioned in the Italian Constitution, but it has been consistently upheld by the Court of Cassation as a fundamental principle of Italian citizenship law, deeply intertwined with the nation's identity and history. Law 1432's severe limitation on this principle could be seen as undermining this established legal tradition.

  
  

• Right to non-discrimination: By introducing the requirement of exclusive Italian nationality without coexistence with other nationalities for those who transmit citizenship to descendants, Law 1432 creates a discriminatory treatment of those who hold dual citizenship, as they are banned from transmitting it to their descendants. Under an Orwellian interpretation, one could say that the new law decree maintains that some Italians with only one nationality are now "more equal" than others with multiple nationality in order to transmit the nationality to their descendants, which is constitutionally unacceptable. Neither the Italian Constitution nor EU law would allow this discrimination to prevail.

  
  

• Principle of Legitimate Expectation: Many individuals of Italian descent have relied on the previous legal framework (Law 91/1992) in planning their lives and making decisions about their future. Law 1432's retroactive application could violate the principle of legitimate expectation, which protects individuals from sudden and unexpected changes in the law that negatively affect their established rights and expectations. The "saving clause" mentioned in the snippets may not be sufficient to protect everyone's legitimate expectations.

  
  

• Principle of Non-Retroactivity: The general principle in Italian law, enshrined in Article 11 of the Italian Civil Code, is that the law applies only to future events; it has no retroactive effect. Law 1432 has retroactive elements. The application of Law 1432 to individuals whose Italian ancestors emigrated generations ago raises concerns about the violation of this principle.

  
  

• Principle of Equality: It is questionable whether Law 1432 treats similarly situated individuals equally. There may be discrimination between those who are first- or second-generation descendants of an Italian citizen and those who are further removed, with no objective justification for such a distinction. This could raise issues under Article 3 of the Italian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

  
  

• Breach of Article 77 of the Italian Constitution: There are questions about whether the original Decree Law 36/2025 met the constitutional requirement that it be presented to the President of the Republic and Parliament on the same day it was approved by the Council of Ministers.

  
  

• Questionable Urgency of the Decree Law: The use of a Decree Law is reserved for situations of "extraordinary necessity and urgency." The appropriateness of using this instrument for a reform of citizenship law, a matter that had been the subject of parliamentary debate for months prior to the decree's issuance, is questionable. The need for immediate action may not have been sufficiently demonstrated.

  
  

• Breach of the Homogeneity Requirement: Italian Decree Laws, given their exceptionality and urgency justification, must address a single, homogeneous subject matter. Law 1432, stemming from Decree Law 36/2025, may violate this requirement, as it introduces substantial changes to citizenship law that could be considered distinct from any urgent need to simply streamline application procedures.

  
  

• Breach of the Principle of Reasonableness and Proportionality: The limitation of iure sanguinis to two generations, and the removal of the right to citizenship for those who had it recognized since birth, may be considered an unreasonable measure that is disproportionate to the stated goals of the legislation. The law creates two classes of people in different situations, with no reasonable justification, no transitional periods, in a radical transformation of pre-existing rights.

  
  

• Breach of Protection of the Family: Article 29 of the Italian Constitution protects the family. Law 1432 could disrupt family units by creating unequal citizenship status among family members based on generation. This might disproportionally impact individuals who have maintained strong family bonds with relatives in Italy and family members who have been previously recognized as Italian through the courts, consulate or comuni.

  
  

• Relevant Case Law: The Italian Constitutional Court has consistently affirmed the importance of iure sanguinis, even while acknowledging the legislature's power to regulate citizenship. The Court of Cassation has also repeatedly upheld the rights of descendants to claim citizenship iure sanguinis, since birth as an imprescriptible and permanent right, and recognizing it as a fundamental element of Italian legal tradition. The changes introduced by Law 1432 may conflict with these established judicial precedents.

  
  

• Breach of European Union Law: The implications of Law 1432 under EU law also warrant consideration. While citizenship is primarily a matter for individual member states, EU law prohibits discrimination based on nationality (Article 18 TFEU) and protects the fundamental rights of EU citizens. Law 1432's restrictions on the rights of descendants of Italian citizens may raise concerns about potential discrimination and the violation of the doctrine of acquired rights.

  
  

  The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has also developed a body of jurisprudence on the protection of acquired rights and the requirements of fair process before citizenship can be removed or denied. The sudden and severe restrictions imposed by Law 1432 might conflict with these principles. This breach of European Union Law can be seen in case law like: Rottmann, Tjebbes, Wiener Landesregierung, Stadt Duisburg, Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet. Also, the European Court of Human Rights has shown protection in cases like Broniowsky on acquired rights.

  
  

Impact on Individuals and the Italian Diaspora:

The consequences of Law 1432 for individuals of Italian descent, particularly those living abroad, are profound. Millions of people worldwide, who previously had a clear path to claiming their Italian heritage with a pre-established right, now face significant obstacles. This includes:

• Restriction of Rights: The limitation to two generations abruptly cuts off the citizenship link for many descendants, denying them the opportunity to connect legally with their Italian roots.

  
  

• Impact on Young Professionals living abroad: Law 1432 will disproportionately affect young professionals who have exercised their right to free movement, as they get limitations on how they transmit citizenship to their descendants.

  
  

• Damaged Relationship with the Diaspora: Italy's relationship with its diaspora, a source of cultural and economic strength, could be strained. The new law sends a message that Italy is less willing to embrace its descendants, potentially alienating communities that have maintained strong cultural and emotional ties to the country.

  
  

Comparative Analysis:

While many European countries base their citizenship laws on a combination of ius sanguinis and ius soli, the strict generational limit imposed by the Law Proposition 1432 is a relatively restrictive approach. France, Spain, and Portugal, while having variations in their laws, generally allow for more extended transmission of citizenship by descent, often considering factors like cultural ties and integration. For example, Spanish Law allows descendants of Sephardic Jews expelled in 1492 to recover Spanish citizenship even after 500 years have passed, the same is true in Portugal. Law 1432, by prioritizing recent connections to Italy, diverges from this broader European trend.

The historical context of Italian emigration is also unique. Unlike Portuguese, Spanish, or English migration to the New World’s territories that were part of their countries of origin or were part of the same cultural and language tradition, Italian emigration to the Americas and other continents often involved a complete cultural and linguistic shift.

Iure sanguinis was conceived to safeguard the heritage and culture of these communities, a factor often overlooked in comparative analyses. The Italian diaspora has been a crucial asset for Italy throughout its history, with remittances from immigrants providing vital support to the nation's balance of payments after World War I.

Inspiring figures like Amadeo Pietro Giannini, the founder of Bank of America, played a pivotal role in financing the reconstruction of FIAT factories after World War II, even before the Marshall Plan. Countless others have been instrumental in building and internationalizing Italy's fashion and luxury sectors, and the wine industry owes much of its global success to investments and promotion by Italian descendants. This diaspora is also central to Italy's burgeoning "Tourism of the Roots," a sector with the potential to contribute over 20% of total tourism revenue.

Arguments for and Against Law 1432:

The Italian government, in support of Law 1432, has argued that it addresses several pressing issues:

• Backlog of Applications: The influx of citizenship applications, particularly from countries with large Italian diaspora populations, has overwhelmed consulates, leading to lengthy processing times. Law 1432, by limiting the number of eligible applicants, is intended to alleviate this backlog.

  
  

• Prevention of Fraud: The government claims that the previous system was vulnerable to fraud, with some individuals making false claims of Italian ancestry. The "effective link" requirement and stricter rules are intended to prevent this.

  
  

• Strengthening the Connection with the State: The government argues that a more recent and demonstrable connection to Italy is necessary for individuals to be considered true members of the Italian nation.

  
  

However, these arguments are not without their weaknesses:

• Addressing the Backlog through Restriction is Problematic: While the backlog is a genuine concern, addressing it by restricting access to a fundamental right is a questionable approach. Resources should have been allocated to address the backlog, introducing more technology and IT, outsourcing, or increasing personnel, as well as a process audit for improvements.

  
  

• Fraud Concerns: While fraud is a legitimate concern, it does not justify penalizing the vast majority of legitimate applicants. As an example, one could also say there may be fraud in social and employment services, but the solution is not the removal or ban of those eligible, rather a more efficient control of its allocation and fraud prevention. The "effective link" concept is vague and potentially discriminatory, as it implies that great colonies of Italian citizens abroad are less of a citizen and with fewer rights than those who live in Italian territory.

  
  

• Redefining National Identity: The idea of strengthening the connection to the state should not come at the cost of excluding millions of individuals who feel deeply connected to their Italian heritage and have kept traditions alive for generations to come.

  
  

Furthermore, additional negative economic and social consequences must be considered.

• Negative Impact on Tourism and Trade: Law 1432 could have a negative impact on Italy's "roots tourism" industry. Individuals of Italian descent often travel to Italy to explore their ancestral origins, contributing significantly to the economy. Additionally, limiting the recognition of Italian citizenship may negatively affect the consumption of Italian products in countries with large Italian diaspora communities, such as the United States, Brazil and Argentina, where strong cultural and emotional ties to Italy often translate into commercial preferences, this happening at a delicate moment of tariff war that may include Italian goods sold abroad.

  
  

• Political Prejudice: It's also concerning that prejudices held by some politicians, who have wrongly manifested that iure sanguinis recognition of citizenship for descendants of Italians in places like Brazil and Argentina was in some cases portrayed as a form of criminal activity, bordering on hate speech, may have influenced this reform. Such attitudes can lead to unreasonable, abusive and discriminatory use of legislative power.

  
  

Analysis of the Conversion Process:

The parliamentary debate surrounding the conversion of Decree Law 36/2025 into Law 1432 was contentious, with significant opposition to the restrictive measures. While some amendments were introduced, the core provisions of the decree remained largely unchanged and even tightened. The legitimacy and procedural correctness of the conversion process, particularly the initial reliance on a Decree Law for such a fundamental change in citizenship law, is open to debate.

Conclusion

The project of Law 1432, derived from Decree Law 36/2025, represents a fundamental and, in this author's opinion, deeply flawed transformation of Italian citizenship law. The imposition of a strict two-generation limit on iure sanguinis and the introduction of a vaguely defined "effective link" requirement represents a radical departure from established legal principles and raises serious constitutional concerns. This legislation not only curtails the rights of millions of individuals of Italian descent worldwide but also risks damaging Italy's relationship with its diaspora, a community that has historically contributed significantly to the nation's cultural and economic life.