English Transcript - Martedì 8 Aprile 2025 alle ore 13:30 - Riacquisto della cittadinanza italiana

English Transcript - Martedì 8 Aprile 2025 alle ore 13:30 - Riacquisto della cittadinanza italiana

[Note: The following text is transcribed and translated with assistance from AI tools.  Please verify against the original source: https://webtv.senato.it/webtv/commissioni/riacquisto-della-cittadinanza-italiana-0]

**Moderator:** If it's about 2025 to be converted through bill number 1432, and then the hearings also concern our parliamentary initiative bills number 98 and related ones regarding the reacquisition of citizenship. So, have we connected with Professor Lawyer Fabrizio Ottiano?

**Moderator:** Yes, I see him. Good morning, Mr./Madam President. Full Professor of Administrative Law, University of Messina. Can you hear me? Yes, yes, thank you. Good morning. Listen, good morning professor. So, our rules are that you have 10 minutes to express your opinion, your considerations on the entirety of these six laws, starting of course with the decree law. Then your colleagues will ask you questions, if they wish, and you will have a few minutes to respond. In short, the whole thing is to stay within 20 minutes. Therefore, I give you the floor immediately and ask you to speak within the 10 minutes that have been assigned to you. Please, professor.

**Professor Lawyer Fabrizio Ottiano:** Thank you, Mr. President, thank you also for convening this meeting. I will be, as far as possible, well, I will, I will, I will keep within the time limits. So, citizenship, and on citizenship, I will also follow some notes, has always been, how to say, a difficult testing ground, because from citizenship and from citizenship rights, how to say, derive the recognition of civil and political rights, but fundamentally citizenship, indeed, primarily citizenship presupposes a strong state organization that is able to recognize and guarantee these rights. We, we find ourselves in a system where, in truth, we are also surrounded by conventions, conventions from the UN to conventions on cultural heritage, and also our internal regulations, the European Charter of Human Rights, which guarantee the fundamental rights that are connected to citizenship, and on the other hand, also as can be seen from the report to the decree law, let's say, the jurisprudence has repeatedly expressed itself, the united sections between 2009 and 2022 have given a series of indications on this topic. And so my considerations are these. The current debate, therefore, is lively because it currently moves on different latitudes and longitudes. On the one hand, there are the fundamental rights of the person, and on the other hand, however, the public interests of the State and the complexity and cumbersome nature of procedures in which the investigation is often very complex and not by chance, I see a provision precisely on the subject of evidence which in reality re-proposes the principles of 2697 of the Civil Code, only in the administrative process there is a possibility of intervention, intervention by the judge ex officio. The administration, the administration finds itself within a system in which it must guarantee welfare measures, fundamental rights of citizens, but also in reality recognizes them to a large extent also to foreigners. I am thinking, I am thinking of healthcare, education, for example. And constitutional constraints here have a central role in my opinion. The State as an institution is at the center of this, of this affair and the State already in itself finds itself operating in a liquid and global society in which the very concept of sovereignty, of population, of territory undergoes continuous downward revisions. And on the other hand, belonging to the European Union and in particular Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty, recognition of EU citizenship, albeit automatic, certainly imposes on us a particular attention. Now if if we did not start from this framework it would be strange to worry about the issues of citizenship and civil and political rights and and even more it might seem, let's say, superfluous to create the problem of the rules through which the Status Civitatis is transmitted to subjects not born in Italy or subjects born in Italy to foreigners through the rule of Ius Soli. The rule of Ius Sanguinis is a, is the fundamental one, the one we follow based on Law 91 of 1992. In reality, in reality the issue of the recognition of citizenship and the attribution of citizenship has become complicated especially in the recent period, I would say in the last short century. On an axiological level, the issue of equality, non-discrimination and gender equality, as well as that of the proportionality of legislative choices aimed at curbing uncontrolled migratory phenomena, also of return, as in the draft law, has committed and commits us quite a bit, it also commits the jurisprudence, as we have seen also of the Constitutional Court, of the united sections of the Cassation Court, but also of the Court of Justice which has ruled on matters concerning the citizen's income. And therefore all this might seem strange, considering that fundamentally fundamental rights are recognized on a large scale. The world has perhaps had largely broken down its barriers and today it is unthinkable to preclude anyone from the application of principles and values widely shared, at least at the level of the so-called Western states. I don't remember the interventions of the Constitutional Court for brevity, but certainly in a global village, the space for citizenship or rather, I would say, given the draft law, the interest in citizenship might lose value and meaning. The reasons why we are still questioning ourselves on this point are linked to the need not to lose sight of the founding values and the very consistency of the state, on ridges capable of leading not to the disintegration of the State, but to further, let's say, limits to sovereignty, even through the entry of population into the territory that maybe is not so directly interested. The limitations to sovereignty, we all know, are regulated by Article 11, are provided for by Article 11 of the Constitution and therefore one cannot legitimately imagine a priori renunciation to being, indeed to wanting to be, I would say. Cicero said \"Civis Romanus Sum\" in the Verrines, precisely to, to, to affirm, to affirm the, the protection that citizenship already in ancient times had. And this still applies today. There is a very strong link, not only with the State, but also with the family. I remember the Pater Familias as a subject \"sui iuris\", which maybe today would sound, would sound strange, but at the time it meant something that we have today reiterated with the reform of family law in 1975 and with a whole series of further interventions, namely the link that exists between citizenship and family. A further aspect to consider for a scholar like me of administrative law is central the passage from subject to citizen. because it marks a different position towards public power, it is not only the recognition of rights, but it is a different position in general with respect to public power, because public power is on the other hand bound by the constitutional principles of impartiality, of good administration, of the values coming from the European Union, I am thinking precisely of proportionality, of the regulation of a whole series of regulations starting from the 90s that have revised the public-private relationship. All this has a limit and we cannot hide it from ourselves. If the national interest today is a recessive clause, on the other hand the erosion of sovereignty from several parts, the problem of legitimacy and credibility even before the efficiency of administrations, presupposes that the public part is an attentive interlocutor and and always linked to the pursuit of the public interest, an indeclinable interest that is linked to a very precise axiological context. Several decades ago, there was already talk of administrative citizenship, precisely because for the citizen, the passage from the status of subject to the status of citizen determines a different, a different, a different way of understanding the relationship, relationship with public power. The concerns expressed regarding the uncontrolled request for citizenship can be seen from various angles. On the one hand, it could be observed that it is the Constitution that obliges to prepare an organization capable of guaranteeing good administration. Also on the basis of this assumption, for example, the Constitutional Court has imposed the provision of healthcare services even beyond the rights, the rights financially conditioned, but on the other hand it is precisely the same Constitutional Court that says that \"ad impossibilia nemo tenetur\", which implies, implies that even the administration cannot be forcibly put in a condition to suffer a complex of unbearable burdens. The idea of limiting naturalization procedures, therefore, from this point of view has a basis that obviously must be declined, I say it immediately and I emphasize it, with great prudence so as not to exceed with respect to proportionality, impartiality and equality. Another question that I asked myself concerns the concept of people, which by its nature is indeterminate, because it fundamentally identifies the subjects residing in the territory. Hence the temperaments of Ius Sanguinis with Ius Soli, indeed the relationship in some way complementary sometimes between these two principles. If birth from an Italian citizen or citizen in Italy constitutes the typical and undisputed hypothesis, whenever residence is not in the territory and the more or less definitive entry of subjects who have never expressed the desire to reside there must be assessed, it effectively raises certain questions that the procedures in place propose to address. Choices also once again, I emphasize, certainly difficult and delicate, where the risk of discrimination is always looming. Another aspect that I wanted to highlight is the issue of the demographic decline. The choice to limit entries here must be accompanied by policies aimed at promoting births and guaranteeing adequate family support, which has also been done in the past, but not with convincing welfare policies. Furthermore, it could also be objected that precisely because of the demographic decline, limiting the entry of subjects in some way \"oriundi\", if you forgive the sporting digression, in itself it is not said that it is the best, also considering the recent migratory phenomena that have massively and difficultly controlled invested our country. Here the issue is not that of migratory flows, but rather that of preventing others from subjects who were born abroad, who have spent their lives and would like to return home. In itself this operation would have its validity, for the reasons that are expressed in the draft law, but I wish to point out that unlimited openness hides undoubted dangers faced also by the decree law and and well clarified, I must say, by the attached report. It seems to me that there is also another aspect, precisely connected to this that I would like to emphasize, which is connected to the concept of abuse of law. If it is true that fundamental rights must always be recognized, that the Status Civitatis, as the united sections teach, is imprescriptible, indeclinable, except for renunciation or forfeiture, on the other hand this cannot entail the abuse of instruments and procedures that are designed for the benefit of the person and the utilities of the person and the legitimate aspirations of this person. And therefore it is a very delicate issue that concerns the possibility of preventing de facto an undue use of a series of faculties proper to the internal and community citizen from being allowed. Fundamental rights, I would insist on this point, are designed for the most fragile, minors, disabled people, persecuted people, the sick, the poor, as a very dear colleague, Professor Claudio Franchini, wrote some time ago, not for those who are able to provide for their own needs themselves. And this does not authorize a substantial equality reversed, misaligning the protection ensured to all and to each. It means instead that in providing for it, the first interests to be considered are those really public and public interests are those measured on the possibilities of correct use of resources and the management of welfare. The idea of regulating the granting of citizenship is in itself right and necessary, as is to a significant extent, but not equally essential, allowing the reacquisition of citizenship for all. In this context, now then, fixed points must be set, which are gender equality, the protection of vulnerable subjects, the ability to find a sustainable balance between the possibilities of the administration, the interests of the State and the sense of justice and fundamental solidarity and proper to the Constitutional Charter. It is a very slippery slope, we know it well. I remember a speech by Margaret Thatcher who in making reforms said that these reforms were not for the faint of heart. We find ourselves in an era in which the relationship people, citizenship, sovereignty risks dissolving before new global phenomena, capable of supplanting the very idea of the State moment. I believe that the task of States and of the relative European and perhaps also international institutions is to understand that the horizons towards which we are moving by leaps and bounds cannot disregard, I emphasize, clear rules. This is one of the fundamental points for a jurist, even for the one less anchored to rigid positivists. Once legislation showed a clarity and quality that is almost unknown today, but we must not forget that the interests at stake between the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century have undergone a frightening multiplier effect, also linked to the enormous growth of the world population and the advent of social rights, these are also the eras of migration from Italy abroad. And then also on this, I believe that the legislator must question himself taking into account the birth crisis that has affected Italy for years and that if the course is not reversed will determine, I do not believe the extinction of the Italian population, I believe that this is not a danger, but certainly situations of further conflicts. We must not have prejudices on the other hand, but we must have serious awareness and we must dictate clear rules, avoiding non-choices

**Moderator:** Professor, it would be necessary to move towards the conclusion.

**Professor Lawyer Fabrizio Ottiano:** Yes, dictate clear rules, avoiding non-choices certainly but less effective, as Thatcher said. And this does not always mean realizing the public interest. The experience of these years, Mr. President, has shown how the issue of citizenship has been addressed no longer with the balance dictated by the need to create a bundle of rights and guarantees for the resident subject of the State in the face of public power and the services offered by the administration, but has lent itself to instrumentalization and instrumentalizations are unacceptable, are typical of undefined situations, on which the order has gone into trouble and is going into trouble. It is correct and I conclude, Mr. President, to regulate the granting of citizenship without ill-advised omnibus openings on the one hand and without unjustified closures, given the need to remain within the framework of constitutional and community provisions. There is no axiology that can justify the former and the latter. I'm finished.

**Moderator:** Thank you. Thank you professor, because now if colleagues have any questions to ask, they can do so. Senator La Marca, please.

**Senator La Marca:** Thank you, Mr. President, good morning everyone. I thank the professor for his report. Professor, apart from the fact that we are also from the same region, I was born in North and Central America, of Sicilian origin, like you, and it is a pleasure to greet you. Look, I am the lead signatory of the bill on the reacquisition of citizenship. This week's hearings are focused on citizenship, on the decree that has been issued and on the bill, along with mine, and those of Menia and Giacobbe, regarding reacquisition for those who have lost it. Professor, I have a question for you. So, my bill provides for automatic reacquisition for those who were citizens, as you well know, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, Canada, the United States, Australia. We are talking about people who left Italy as adults, or at least as adolescents, therefore born into this society, with this culture, obliged in a certain sense to naturalize. To become naturalized, they were forced to renounce their Italian citizenship. Now, the decree of Minister Tagliani goes in exactly the opposite direction to my bill. That is, the current law stipulates 12 months of residence in Italy for those born in Italy, immigrants, so it requires 12 months of residence. The decree wants to double this period, increasing it to 24 months, while my bill proposes automatic reacquisition, especially because we are talking about people who are now over 70, and therefore, more than anything, reacquisition is a symbolic matter and many write to us, contact us daily saying that they want to remain, to die Italian. Now, the question I ask you is why, in your opinion, is this government so hostile to the automatic reacquisition of Italian citizenship and what do you see as an obstacle or impediment to the automatic reacquisition for seniors over 70 automatically? Thank you.

**Moderator:** Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Professor, let's also listen to the others, then you respond all together. Thank you. Senator Giacobbe, please go ahead.

**Senator Giacobbe:** Thank you, President, thank you Professor Ottiano for your presentation, it was very interesting to hear a discussion concerning citizenship, especially in light of the situation in Italy. However, I wanted to ask specifically, in the coming days we are called to decide whether to ratify, approve, modify or reject a government decree law that practically cuts off citizenship by descent after two generations, limiting it to birth in Italy of a parent or grandparent, or in some cases, parental residency for at least 2 consecutive years in Italy before the birth of the person requesting citizenship. Now, in your experience and in your, let's say, given that you work in this sector, what is your opinion on this clean cut of, this in a certain sense means the end of citizenship by descent in the world, because unless there is a turnover of people coming from Italy or who come to live in Italy. So what is, what is your opinion on the decree law, in addition also to your opinion on the draft law that my colleague indicated to you earlier regarding the reacquisition of citizenship for those who lost it before 1992.

**Moderator:** Thank you, Senator. Are there any others? No. Right then, Professor, please answer these two questions concisely.

**Professor Lawyer Fabrizio Ottiano:** Yes, so then I deliberately first made a general statement, not because obviously the bill and the decree law are three pieces of legislation, therefore they are not clear, although the reports are also very exhaustive. I made this choice because here the decision is a decision based on principles. It is not, it is not, it is a decision, in my opinion, eminently political, but on a legal level I would like, I would like to say, which is what is within my remit, I would like to say this. Italy certainly has a particular history. I too had relatives who were in the United States and who returned to spend their final days, to spend their final days at home, even in their old native village. I believe that this, that this is an interest and I said it is worthy of protection, and I believe that the decree law aims to find a way to lay down clear rules in a context that has lent itself not to, let's say, favouring the return of those over seventy, but has lent itself, and the data provided are quite clear, has also lent itself to situations that certainly, I have defined as abusive. So I believe that the choice must be to find a way to define, to define well, above all this issue of, this issue of ancestry which here is only to the first generation, to one generation, but it is deliberately to one generation, because, because often requests for recognition of citizenship are instrumental requests. This is not true for everyone and it is, and it is the problem of deciding. I also, here too, it is no coincidence that I recalled a speech that struck me very much by Thatcher, who was famous for, had remained famous precisely for being a decision-maker, but from a legal point of view what should emerge from the, from the bill as from the decree law is the certainty of the rules and the certainty of the rules from my experience, because that is what you are asking me, is fundamental, is fundamental not only in general terms, but it is fundamental because every choice we make falls on the administration and administrations are often clogged with impossible administrative procedures. For example, the procedures for the repatriation of migrants are procedures that always come back, they are not and they do not ever reach a conclusion. And yet we have all designed together an efficient administration, a well-organized administration, an administration that is able to give, to give the right answers. And for this reason, I would not want, I would not want to seem, I would not want to give the sensation of blowing hot and cold, but the truth is this, that is, the truth is that there is no doubt that the decree law expresses a need and this need to lay down clear, firm and definitive rules exists. On the other hand, on the other hand, the risk is that of hitting those over seventy and almost all of us have had immigrant relatives, especially those of us from the South, but not only, Veneto and the other regions of the North, of also hitting subjects who, after all, come here and bring wealth, because then there is also another issue, there is the issue of the birth rate and therefore of the welfare policies I was talking to you about, also the issue linked to the fact that, after all, those who come to Italy could also constitute a source, a source of wealth and gain and the difficulty of these, of these three pieces of legislation is precisely this, the difficulty of these three pieces of legislation is precisely this, that is, both of the decree law and of the bill, is precisely that of finding a sustainable and proportionate balance, because my, in conclusion, my fear is that, is that then these choices may run into, let's say, a judgment of constitutionality because it is a matter of extremely delicate and extremely slippery choices in which the risk of creating conditions of discrimination is just around the corner. I am thinking, I don't know, of the very recent ruling of the Constitutional Court relating to a disabled person who is not able to prove possession of the Italian language, so at a certain point it was said ad impossibilia, indeed, Nemo Tenetur, look, the Constitutional Court intervened, intervened on this, intervened also through the Court of Justice on the ten-year term for accessing the citizen's income. It is true that the citizen's income is, how to say, is another, is a bit far from what we are saying, but it is linked to the idea of citizenship in a broad sense, that is, in doctrine, we sometimes also discuss citizenship understood in a broad sense, while here we are talking about citizenship in a narrow sense, that is, citizenship understood as recognition with a declarative administrative act of a status and of, and of avoiding the overlapping of statuses and of avoiding the instrumentalization of what is, what is the first, the first recognition when a person is born, a child, which is the status civitatis. It is no coincidence that I have quoted, you will forgive me, Roman law precisely for this, for Saint Paul saved us from persecutions, from persecutions by declaring Civis Romanus Sum. That is to say how important this recognition is. I hope, I hope to have answered. Thank you. Thank you, Professor, it was very exhaustive, then if you would like to send us further written considerations, we will certainly acquire them for our work.

---

**Moderator:** Okay, so now we need to move on. Professor Anthony Julian Tamburri, dean of the Calandra Italian American Institute, is connected, and so if you're ready Professor, you also have 10 minutes. Please, go ahead.

**Professor Anthony Julian Tamburri:** Good morning, and I want to thank Senator La Marca for the invitation. Um, I will be brief and speak to you more from the perspective of someone who studies both the history and the culture of Italians abroad, particularly concerning the United States. Um, first of all, we know Professor Tigano has already touched upon, even if indirectly, the migratory history of the United States, which is tied to Italy. We know there are over 80 million people of Italian descent worldwide, and also over 6 million Italian citizens living outside of Italy. Um, and then in the Americas, from Canada down to Argentina, this number is around 73-74 million people of Italian descent. In other words, Italy has a significant population, so to speak, living outside of the country. And then, in recent discussions, especially in the last 10 years, we've seen initiatives to attract, let's say, not just Italians born in Italy, but also their children, if not grandchildren. We have, for example, the "Journey to the Roots" or "Roots Tourism" program. Italy, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has invested heavily, and we've seen a significant investment in this "Journey to the Roots" project here in North America in 2024. We also have, in Italy, this discussion about "beautiful villages." The administration, or rather, this association, is trying to encourage people of Italian descent to return, especially to these beautiful villages, to try to repopulate the many villages that have been abandoned. And then we've also seen, I personally saw last year, a village in Lazio, in Ciociaria, in the Comino Valley, that was repurchased by a family currently living in Scotland. And then, I also want to make this point: at least in the United States, the average age of Italian Americans is only 40 years old. This could, in a way, contribute to the near-zero birth rate in Italy, as a 40-year-old man or woman in Italy might still be looking to start a family. And then there's also the matter of income. Italian Americans have an average annual income of $90,000. When I say "Italian American," I mean Italian-American. And then, as the Senator has already mentioned, there are many Italians, that is, many who were born in Italy but were forced to leave. For example, in the United States, until the 1960s, late 60s, they couldn't have dual citizenship. They had to, as the Senator said, renounce their [Italian] citizenship. And I personally saw a cousin of mine who had difficulties. He came to the United States when he was 25-30 years old, and then at 80 he wanted to regain his [Italian] citizenship, and it was almost impossible. It took him like 4-5 years to do it – someone who had left his town in Ciociaria for economic reasons. And certainly, as Professor Tigano pointed out, there's the entire administrative and legal aspect that a nation needs to consider to broadly protect itself from the influence of, in quotation marks, "foreigners." But it seems to me that Italy has already signaled in the last 10 years an invitation for people to return, to come, if they are children or grandchildren born abroad, to come or return to Italy, and try to build a life for themselves there. Um, I'll stop here because I see there are still at least two or three people who need to speak. Thank you.

**Moderator:** Thank you, professor, now I ask the colleagues if anyone wants to ask questions, Senator La Marca and Senator Giacobbe. Okay, Senator, please go ahead.

**Senatrice La Marca:** Thank you. Thank you Mr. President, thank you Professor.

**Senatrice La Marca <Speaking in English>:** Professor, I don't know if I should ask my question in English. No, I guess we'll leave that for another time. So I'll I'll I'll continue in in...

**Unknown**: <inaudible>

**Senatrice La Marca:** I understand and that's why I'm speaking Italian. It's called it's called a joke.

**Senatrice La Marca <Speaking in Italian again>:** Professor, you... Someone can't take a joke. Professor, ehm you direct, we've known each other for years, obviously I mentioned your name, it's obvious, the respect I have for you. You know very well the current situation of the Italian-American community, which I also have the honor to represent in Parliament, we are talking about over, over 250,000 people registered with the AIRE in the United States alone, not to mention the many, many people of Italian origin who are obviously now penalized by this decree because it goes to to to modify, in short, the law. Ehm Professor, a question if I may, given that you know the Italian-American reality so well. What do you see? What are, in your opinion, the potential benefits, the contribution that an automatic reacquisition of citizenship for those who lost it decades ago could bring, keeping in mind that we are talking, as I said earlier, about people who are now over, over 70. What are the benefits in your opinion? The potential benefits for current Italian society, by giving back citizenship, in addition to being to remedy an injustice that was done decades ago, but ehm contributions to to current Italian society, by giving back citizenship automatically to those who were previously Italian. Thank you.

**Moderator:** Please. Senator Giacobbe, go ahead. Finally, Professor.

**Professor Anthony Julian Tamburri:** Yes, yes.

**Moderator:** Let's also listen to Professor Giacobbe. Go ahead, professor. Senator Giacobbe, go ahead senator.

**Senatore Giacobbe:** Well, both titles are fine, Mr. President. I remember academic work, it's good sometimes. I really miss the students I used to have at university, so it's good sometimes. No, I'm not speaking in English, Robert, I don't remember the times at university in Sirino, obviously we spoke in English, sometimes they were surprised by a few words in Italian. Well, especially when he was tired. Professor, thank you for your presentation. You mentioned something, my question is very quick, you mentioned a very interesting thing which is the campaign that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has done and continues to do abroad on roots tourism, linked to the small villages, and the Italea project and everything else, which is a very nice thing, because it's a campaign that aims to encourage those who want to return to Italy and visit their places of origin. And I must tell you from direct experience that when my daughter-in-law, fourth generation Italian in Australia, came to Italy, she didn't go, she didn't ask me to accompany her to Rome or Florence, but she asked me to accompany her to the hometowns of her paternal and maternal great-grandparents, Bronte in Sicily and Marton in Calabria. So there is this push from young people, from new generations to go and visit their places of origin of their parents, their grandparents, their great-grandparents and therefore very very often these are small villages where they can bring at least with their presence both an investment of spending, because staying there you spend money, but also fall in love with the place and possibly stay, as you were telling us about the experience of investors who bought properties to renovate them. Now, what I wanted to ask you, in your opinion is there a relationship between the desire of our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren to visit their places of origin and therefore is there also a relationship between the campaign that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is doing for this off-season tourism, which goes to places that are not primarily major tourist locations and Italian citizenship. That is, Italian citizenship is one of the variables that could encourage people to come to Italy more. So is there a connection, in your opinion, according to your experience, your observation, between being an Italian citizen and having a greater inclination to visit or come to Italy. Thank you.

**Moderator:** Are there any others? No, there are no others, so professor, you can answer, thank you.

**Professor Anthony Julian Tamburri:** Let me start, let me start with these second questions. I believe that there is a relationship between those who want to visit and perhaps even buy property in their country of family origin, and those who want to obtain Italian citizenship at the same time. I see it, I don't have the statistics, but I see it with the people I meet and know. I'll give you an example, two examples actually, an example of a colleague of mine who last year bought a house that he is having renovated in Puglia, and at the same time he is also applying, he is perhaps in his third or fourth year of application for citizenship. I know others who have done the same thing. I've seen it in my family, I made a reference to the Comino Valley, for over 55 years I have been going every year to this small town to visit relatives, friends, etc., and I also see there many who have returned, some with citizenship, others without citizenship. Therefore, in my opinion this relationship exists. And that's point number one. Regarding the senator's question about the economic aspect, I believe it is already quite clear with this first answer that there is also an economic advantage for these areas, let's say, outside of major tourist centers. Indeed, I'm talking about the Ora Valley as another example. Um, for several years before Covid-19, myself and other colleagues went to Sicily every May to organize a conference, a symposium, a conference on Italian culture, and also the culture, let's say, of Italian descendants. Due to reasons related to a different location and timing, we decided to move after Covid-19 to a small town called Casalvieri in the Comino Valley. We already held the first edition last year, and this year we are holding the second. During this event, for at least 3-4 days, we were 30-40 people in this small town. We are returning this year. This desire, or rather, this custom of returning to Italy, even outside of major centers, is becoming quite popular here among various professors and groups of scholars who wish to come and perhaps hold a conference in Italy. In my opinion, there is a strong link between the economy and these movements we are discussing today.

---

**Moderator:** Well, thank you professor.

**Professor Anthony Julian Tamburri:** You're welcome

**Moderator:** So, if you want to stay connected with us, we will continue with our work. We now have Franca Biglio, president of the National Association of Small Italian Municipalities. Good evening, president, how are you? Can you hear me? Activate the audio. Well, can you hear me now? We don't hear. Why don't we hear?

**Various Speakers:** It often happens, as I remember. the microphone There must be something in her settings. Well. we don't have of the computer. President, you need to activate your audio. Now maybe we'll contact her and see.

**Moderator:** Never mind, we'll contact her now. Meanwhile, let's move on. So, we have Professor Sandro De Nardi present. professor of constitutional law in the master's degree program in law at the University of Padua. Welcome professor, you also have 10 minutes to present your opinion on these bills. Please.

<Silence due to inactive microphone>

**Franca Biglio:** Ah, I can't understand. I don't understand, I don't even hear them anymore, I don't hear anyone anymore.

**Moderator:** President, after Professor De Nardi, I give you the floor.

**Franca Biglio:** Then and now then me.

<Silence for approx 1 minutes due to inactive microphone>

**Moderator:** Professor, please turn on the microphone, otherwise they won't hear us outside. Okay, go ahead.

**Professor Sandro De Nardi:** I'm sorry. And I was saying, I will focus on Article 1, first paragraph, of the decree law concerning the acquisition of Italian citizenship by birthright for those born abroad. In short, I will briefly address the introduction of generational limits to the automatic acquisition of Italian citizenship by descent (Jus Sanguinis) for those born abroad. Well, to understand my considerations, I believe it is appropriate to give a very brief overview of the regulatory context in which this precept from the decree law is situated. Indeed, the new government regulation modifies a legal framework under which a foreigner only needed to prove to the relevant administrative or judicial authorities that they had an ancestor, male or female, who was an Italian citizen, to automatically acquire Italian citizenship by descent. In layman's terms, the law in force until March 28th of last year allowed the unlimited transmission of citizenship by birth, *ius sanguinis*, obviously in the absence of elements interrupting the chain of transmission. Which, given the very high numbers at play, as you well know, there are tens of millions of potential citizens and Italian citizens scattered around the world, Italy being the second country in the world for emigration after China, I was saying, this has led some scholars to assert that the Italian State, with such a provision, has lost control of its population, because Jus Sanguinis has generated an enormous number of virtual or latent Italians. The phenomenon, as also illustrated by the documentation prepared by the competent offices, has grown in recent years in a way that is, to say the least, exponential. The legislative discipline in force until March 28th raised serious doubts, in my view, regarding its constitutional legitimacy, and this had indeed emerged last year, a year ago, within the context of a conference that I myself had organized at the University of Padua. The idea of organizing it had come to me in light of a cry of alarm that had been raised a few months prior by the President of the Court of Appeal of Venice, Dr. Carlo Citterio, on the occasion of the inauguration of the judicial year. At that time, he had denounced the abnormal number of judicial proceedings initiated before the Court of Venice in order to obtain judicial verification and had publicly launched an invitation to politicians to address the issue. On that occasion, at the conference, it had emerged from several authoritative voices that the legislation in force presented various aspects of unconstitutionality for multiple reasons, both due to violation of direct constitutional parameters and due to violation of so-called interposed parameters, attributable, that is, to international or European Union sources. Here, I will confine myself to briefly mentioning some internal constraints provided for and derivable from the Constitution, in light of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the relevant legal scholarship. Well, it should generally never be forgotten that citizenship requires the existence of an ontological bond, as the Constitutional Court defined it, with the territory and with the community, with a certain social fabric. Citizenship therefore presupposes some real connection, not just bureaucratic or on paper, which risks becoming a fake connection. Otherwise, the very notion of the State is undermined, and the State, as we know, is a sovereign territorial entity made up of a people, a territory and sovereignty, elements that are closely connected to one another, and citizenship relates to all three of these elements. It goes without saying that the placement of a potentially very significant portion of the population outside Italian territory would call into question the very territorial nature of the State. I like to remember what a distinguished constitutional scholar, Professor Vezio Crisafulli, wrote in his time, who, and I quote verbatim, stated that the idea of "people" immediately evokes that of the physical coexistence of the group or at least of its quantitatively larger and more constant nucleus. But there's more. It is the very republican character of institutions that presupposes some form of territorial belonging of its citizens. It is popular sovereignty itself, referred to in Article 1, that prevents the people, understood as a body of citizens, from being made up of individuals who become citizens even when they demonstrate a lack of any effective and current link to the community. In other words, it is the very notion of popular sovereignty that imposes implicit limits on the legislator in determining who belongs or does not belong to the people, that is, the body of citizens. Furthermore, the law in effect until March 28, 2025 was, in my view, and I am in good company among legal scholars, clearly flawed due to its unreasonableness, precisely because it allowed the unlimited transmission of Italian citizenship to anyone who simply proved they had an Italian ancestor, even a great-grandparent. Indeed, I believe it is widely accepted that after a certain number of generations abroad, the tie to the original community naturally weakens, or in any case, diminishes greatly. And so, as I was saying, this legislation was unreasonable, in my opinion, in itself, but the unreasonableness was also clear from the effects that, let's not forget, stem from the recognition of citizenship status, particularly regarding the exercise of certain political rights. For example, for the purposes of determining the quorum of validity for abrogative referendums, as well as for the exercise of other political rights and among other things, should the constitutional reform of the premiership be approved, a problem would also arise there, given that millions of Italian citizens residing abroad would be called, by virtue of the text that has been approved, to contribute to electing the President of the Council of Ministers, and could, indeed, prove to be decisive in this choice, because in that case the principle of one person, one vote would apply. In ruling number 25 of 2025, the Constitutional Court affirmed that while the legislator does indeed enjoy broad discretion in regulating the attribution of citizenship—and this is the first time the Court has made such a clear statement regarding citizenship—the Court simultaneously specified that legislative choices in this area, and I quote verbatim, "must always be made according to principles of non-manifest unreasonableness and proportionality in relation to the objectives pursued," end quote. Some of these issues have also been brought before the Constitutional Court, which will be called upon to rule at the hearing scheduled for June 25th next. And I come to decree law 36. I still have a few minutes, President, thank you, to decree law 36. Ehm, what, in essence, this decree law introduces generational limits that previously, as I was saying, were non-existent, were non-existent. And it goes without saying that the number of generations to which one can go back, refer to, is a number that is also the result of an assessment that pertains to, it is evidently a political discretion, therefore here one could discuss whether two, three, one, four, here, in my opinion, there is room for manoeuvre, but in any case, in my view, a maximum generational limit, also from a comparative law perspective, it is appropriate that it be introduced by the legislator, it was an anomaly previously that there was no limit at all. From my point of view, the law decree in question satisfies the requirements prescribed by Article 77 of necessity and urgency, also in light of the, let's say, the quantitative impact of the phenomenon we are dealing with, which cannot be, cannot be overlooked, precisely because Italy is the second country in the world for emigration and also, in my opinion, due to the repercussions that this issue, which is not purely internal, has on the legal framework of the European Union, given that then the obtaining of Italian citizenship also leads to the acquisition of that of the European Union, and also at the level of the international legal system. It could be argued whether a decree law is an appropriate instrument to amend the law on citizenship, thereby affecting citizenship status. Certainly, caution is required in this area, as it is a very sensitive matter. In legal scholarship, it is even argued by some that citizenship is essentially a constitutional matter, precisely because of its systemic implications. However, I believe I can humbly assert that if the ordinary legislative process had been hypothetically chosen, this would have inevitably led to a genuine surge in administrative and judicial applications pending parliamentary approval of the law. One might ask whether this decree law is in line with what is established by Article 22 of the Constitution, according to which no one can be deprived, even of citizenship, for political reasons, and therefore whether this provision could be invoked to support the constitutional illegitimacy of the new Article 3 bis of Law 91 of 1992? I believe that a negative answer should be given to this question for multiple reasons, I will point out just one because I do not have time. In the case at hand, the deprivation cannot be said to be carried out for political reasons, as identified by Article 22 of the Constitution. Um, the interest pursued by this new precept introduced by the decree law is to restore reasonableness to a regulation that was not reasonable, and was not considered reasonable even according to the opinion of several ordinary judges who are now referring this matter to the Constitutional Court. And in this regard, I believe that the amendment introduced by the decree law should not affect the relevance of the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised, for example, by the Court of Bologna, because the main trial, from which the issue originates, must still be decided, according to the explicit provisions of the decree law, by applying the legislation in force on March 27, 2025. Therefore, in my opinion, the Court will rule. Then it will be a matter of seeing what kind of ruling, what decision-making technique the Court can adopt in an area which, I repeat, is, um, one might almost say par excellence the result of political discretion. And where the Court, in my view, would itself find it difficult to identify precise solutions, solutions that have, moreover, been suggested by the judge of Bologna and which are, to be honest, in line with what this decree law has established. Um, one might ask whether a provision like the one contained in the decree law, which is essentially retroactive, is constitutional. Furthermore, within legal doctrine, we could have a whole series of discussions about whether it is truly retroactivity or some other legal concept, but in this regard, I would like to remind you that the Constitutional Court has repeatedly emphasized that the prohibition of retroactivity of the law, while indeed a fundamental principle of the rule of law, is only constitutionally enshrined in criminal matters, specifically in Article 25 of the Constitution. And it is equally true that the Court allows it to be disregarded by the legislator, provided that the retroactivity finds adequate justification in the need to protect principles, rights, and assets of constitutional significance. Having said that, as I mentioned, in my opinion some formal modification would be appropriate, for example, I would add, to avoid misunderstandings, even if the issue could be overcome through interpretation, the word "Italian" after "citizen" in letters C, D, and E, so as not to raise doubts in this regard. Following that, there's a question of temporal law which, in my opinion, should perhaps be addressed during the conversion phase, because, well, it’s true that reading the decree law suggests that the new legislation introduced by the decree is applicable from March 28th onwards. However, it’s also true that this decree law came into force on March 29th, the day after its publication in the Official Gazette. So, I wonder, *quid juris* regarding applications submitted on March 28th? It's probably a mainly theoretical issue, but well, I would clarify that the new legislation applies with effect from March 28th, I repeat, to avoid any ambiguity. I conclude. In the press release that was issued by the Council of Ministers, the approval of a comprehensive bill on citizenship is also announced, and this is needed, also to address issues such as those that the Senator mentioned earlier, concerning, and these are also very sensitive, concerning the re-acquisition of citizenship, and in any case, there is a need for an, how to say, overall assessment of this issue. In my view, we cannot proceed with interventions, forgive the unacademic term, of a fragmented nature on the law in question. There is a need for overall assessments precisely to bring reason to the complexity of the provisions that govern the *status civitatis* in our country. I repeat, I am unaware of the content of this bill, but I believe it will be submitted to your evaluation shortly.

**Moderator:** And Professor, it is necessary for me to conclude.

**Professor Sandro De Nardi:** yes, I'll wrap up by saying, um, and saying, uh, with this decree law, in my opinion, measures are being adopted that are in line with the constitutional model of citizenship that can be derived from a whole series of constitutional precepts and principles. A citizenship that, according to the Constitution, refers to active subjects not only in the exercise of rights, including political rights, but also in the fulfillment of duties. I wouldn't see it as a *contra personas* law, but rather as an *ad personas* law in favor of those who demonstrate a minimal connection; others could naturally be, effectively and currently, [connected] with the Italian Republic. Um, well, um, basically, fundamentally, what is, so to speak, at stake here, is an issue that concerns the very form of the democratic and republican State. Um, and in my opinion, indeed, of crucial importance from a constitutional point of view, uh, if I may be permitted, I would like to invoke, believing it to be in some way relevant to the case you are dealing with, the very famous statement of Cicero: Salus rei publicae suprema lex esto. Thank you for your attention.

**Moderator**: Well, thank you professor. And now let's see if there are any questions, Senator La Marca, Senator Menia, Senator Giacobbe. Afterwards, you will answer everyone at the end. Please, Senator.

**Senator La Marca:** Thank you, president.

**Unknown**: He must turn off. He must turn off.

**Professor Sandro De Nardi:** Yes.

**Senator La Marca:** Thank you professor for the exhaustive presentation. Um, I should preface by saying that Italian is not my first language, so perhaps I missed something. I kindly ask you to confirm for me, I mean, I don't know if I understood correctly, but essentially, you spoke about and rightly so about the sensitivity of the topic of the issue. Did I understand correctly that essentially he/she said that such a complex, such a delicate issue should not have been addressed by decree? This is the first clarification I'm asking you for. Second direct question. Um, in your opinion, Professor, you spoke about, you referred to the ontological link and active subjects, and I completely agree with you. But don't you think – and I repeat, it's a direct question – don't you think that the problems that are plain for all to see could have been avoided? Because in reality, they are plain for all to see and it was necessary to amend this law. But I don't believe, don't you believe that the problems that are plain for all to see could be avoided, instead of imposing a generational limit and instead imposing not only a language exam, let's say B1 or B2 level, for those who want to acquire citizenship *iure sanguinis* by descent, but also some proof of connection, attachment to the land of origin, perhaps by visiting the country once a year, or some other proof, rather than so rigidly and drastically placing a generational limit on the acquisition of *iure sanguinis* citizenship? Thank you.

**Moderator:** Thank you, Senator, Senator Menia.

**Senator Menia:** Professor, thank you, in the meantime, you have been very convincing, I must say, you have been very objective in the things you said, essentially you have explained to us, you have confirmed to us what in reality is also what I think, that is, acting by decree has served to ensure that the long discussion in Parliament of a general topic like this would then generate the creation of a further immense flow of questions. And so it seems to me I am responding to Marca on this, having acted with a decree on what has objectively become an emergency, an urgency, it precisely met that requirement of necessity and urgency that is the prerequisite of every decree law. However, on this point I want to say that she focused her speech on a principle of territorial sovereignty. It's true, the first thing we all learned when taking exams, the very first law exams, was precisely this: wherever there is a state, there are constituent elements, which are the people, the government, and the territory. When we had the paradox at this time of seeing an explosion, a surge of Italian citizenships completely detached from a connection to the territory and with another element that I would like to add, the element of language. Language is closely tied to belonging to a people and therefore to a pact of citizenship. In my opinion, and this is what I wanted to ask you, is whether you think it is appropriate to also add or amend this or other texts that will come when the bill is discussed, a principle of language knowledge, which in my opinion is a fundamental factor. Look, without being self-referential, and it's not that I'm self-quoting, but on a different issue, I presented a constitutional bill in this case about the introduction of the Italian language. We are one of the few countries that, despite having the most beautiful language in the world, our Constitution doesn't recognize it as such. And thinking, for example, about the Spanish Constitution, which is a country very open to autonomies, I think about how it addresses the Catalans, the Basques, etcetera, the Spanish Constitution says: the official language of Spain is Castilian. Every citizen has the duty to know it and the right to practice it. This is what it says. I believe that we should and could introduce a provision of this kind, also because you, in fact, not by chance, said that citizenship is substantially a para-constitutional issue, that is, of constitutional rank. So, this was what I intend to ask. Also because, and here I am making the same reasoning as you, in some way, when we really should open up to a direct election of the Premier, we have that my colleagues here elected abroad are elected abroad, but not in proportion, for example, to the size of the Italian communities abroad, because if that were the case, many more of them should be elected. But the Italian system has recognized the creation of the overseas constituency to give a sort of voice and participation to Italian communities abroad, but they still represent a limited slice even within Parliament, which, if it were proportional to their size, would create a clear imbalance. And in this case, precisely, I raise this very problem: if we paradoxically had an enormous quantity of Italians who reside outside the borders and with another citizenship and who work and live in other countries, what sense would it make and how can we reconcile all of this? Therefore, a question that I ask myself, I ask you, I ask the Parliament itself. How will we deal with this tomorrow? And so, it's not just a suggestion I'm making. The last point concerns the preservation of...  I am absolutely convinced of the enormous heritage of Italians and Italian identity abroad. So, I wouldn't want this to somehow become a law against Italians around the world, because I want the exact opposite. I want it to be something participatory, and for Italians around the world, who embody this wonderful Italian identity, to be a treasure, and not to become something else. And so I would like, for example, and I believe in the principle... I have done a comparative study on other countries, for example, Scandinavian countries require every 7 years – some every 7, some every 9 – a declaration of interest in citizenship, etc. There's Switzerland itself, you know, there are various legal systems in foreign countries that all maintain this, meaning they require a declaration of interest, a will to remain citizens.  Perhaps you have some tools or guidance to offer us on this? Thank you.

**Moderator:** Thank you, Senator Menia, Senator Giacobbe.

**Senator Giacobbe:** Well, first of all, I thank Professor Lenardi for the interesting presentation of the, of the, of the decree law and the Constitution, in particular for the norms of the Constitution. I agree with, I say immediately that there is one thing on which I perfectly agree, which is that yes, the right to acquire citizenship ad infinitum needs to be corrected, because otherwise it would end up allowing the acquisition of citizenship by those who are absolutely not interested in Italian citizenship. So, the fact of being able to think about how to modify this, this matter, it seems to me that it is something on which we can agree, but allow me not to agree on some of the motivations that you have brought here to us and I would like to ask your opinion in this regard, in justification of the decree law, of the urgency, etcetera, that is, there is a vertical increase in citizenship applications, but it is also true that in the last 10 years a million and a half people have left Italy and therefore in those 7 million people registered with AIRE, there are also that million and a half, last year alone 60,000 went to Germany. So it is not only an emergency due to the, to the, it is not an emergency due to the children of descendants, it is also an emergency due to the fact that, that they are, that they have left Italy. You have spoken to us about the ontological bond, the affective bond, etcetera etcetera, arguments on which we could discuss ad infinitum and and hold onto, but on one argument allow me to say my piece, and you speak to us of people, and therefore the people that must be, must be configured, the people that must have a, a territory of their own, and therefore those who practically belong to this people have the right to have certain rights and duties, but where is the people when those Italian citizens have had to and still continue today to leave Italy because the Constitution that guarantees jobs unfortunately is not being realized. So there is a fundamental contradiction in the discourse, let's say, on the one hand we must, we want to protect in constitutional terms the, the, the citizenship etcetera and therefore we look at that aspect in a certain way, but we look, we forget that in fact those who are abroad today, in 95% of cases did not go by choice, but went out of necessity and therefore then no one worried about their constitutional rights. Today we discover it even with an urgent procedure, urgent procedure. Then you said another thing and I beg you to comment on this, because on the one hand you say this provision can be examined with, with, with the criteria of urgency, on the other hand the re-acquisition of Italian citizenship must be seen in a more complex context with a more complex provision, we look at everything, but why don't we look at everything together then? Why, why don't we, why don't we manage to have a discourse on citizenship in an organic way that concerns acquisition etcetera. Finally, you rightly noted, and I am grateful to my colleague Menia who made it a point to emphasize, saying that the representation of Italians in Parliament is a representation that is not proportional to the same numbers we have in Italy, perfectly agree, it was wanted to give a recognition of representation to Italians in the world within Parliament, which creates distortions, because on the one hand parliamentary representation is limited in number, in proportionality, on the other hand when referendums arrive it is not so, because one vote is worth one, because it is provided for in the Constitution. So there are those, I want to say that there are some norms that are perhaps, that have unwanted, undesired consequences. I, the debate that there is on this, on this decree law and the more I talk about it because I have talked about it around the world in various debates, interviews, the last one this morning with an Australian radio station, and the more it seems to me to say, but why are you coming after us? Why are you persecuting us on this thing here? It seemed like a kind of persecution, when instead if there are distortions they can be punished, they can be corrected and we don't tar everyone with the same brush. However, having said this, perfectly agree on the adjustments, you spoke of the number of generations that should, could be retouched. I broaden it even more, because at the moment the two generations are subjected to birth in Italy or residence in Italy. Residence in Italy before the birth of children is only a dream because it almost never happens, birth in Italy could be an acceptable criterion, but I say that there are also other criteria that could be considered, such as registration with AIRE of the parents or in any case other links that the parents may have with Italy and that demonstrate a certain, a certain link. This morning a Brazilian auditor explained to us that if this decree becomes law, he, his wife and daughter are Italian citizens, but his son to be born shortly will not be because neither he nor his parents were born in Italy, so there are distortions, my grandchildren will be in the same situation because born in Australia to parents born in Australia, they will not be able to pass on Italian citizenship and I think that is something that we should go and look at or correct. So I think that we should also open our reflection to other criteria that are not only birth in Italy. Thank you.

**Moderator:** Thank you. Thank you Senator Giacobbe, Senator Giorgis.

**Unknown**: Do you want this? Then this is it.

**Unknown:** You're welcome.

**Senator Giorgis:** Thank you, professor. I have a very, very precise question. You emphasized a lot in your argument the relationship between territory and the principle of sovereignty and statehood, according to the cornerstones of traditional legal doctrine. Don't you think it would be equally urgent to redefine the principles governing citizenship towards greater valorization, therefore towards a more or less tempered *ius soli*? Because otherwise there is an evident contradiction between the assumptions you used to argue, if I understood correctly, the reasonableness of this decree law—on which I have some doubts, in the sense that resorting to urgent decrees on such delicate and substantially constitutional matters, in my opinion, should always be avoided.  However, let's say, if there is a general framework that you have, let's say, provided to the members of this commission, precisely, I am asking you if the natural outcome of your considerations leads to further valorizing this profile.

**Moderator:** Very well, there's no one else, right? No, so Professor, if you could respond to the various points that have been raised to you. Thank you.

**Professor Sandro De Nardi:** Thank you, Mr. President, thank you to the senators who have spoken. I will proceed in the order in which the questions were posed to me. Um, and so, uh, regarding the instrument of the decree law, and as Senator Giorgis was saying earlier, it is an instrument that must be used with caution in matters like these, precisely due to the sensitive nature of the issues involved, issues that are, I repeat, fundamentally constitutional. And after that, I personally believe that in this specific case, that is, in this very peculiar context, we can conclude that there are grounds for using an instrument like a decree law, and because, I repeat, as I mentioned, during the parliamentary process, I dare not imagine what would have happened to the administrations abroad, but also to the judicial offices themselves, because even a few months ago the president of the Court of Venice emphasized how there is a very high increase in applications. Veneto, as you know, has been a land of strong emigration and but it is not only Veneto, of course, but there significant problems are arising, and, among other things, um, the assessment of the prerequisites at the judicial level also poses problems because, um, do the magistrates involved really have the tools to verify that the documentation that has been attached is always truthful? This is a problem, it is a problem that is then also found by the local authorities themselves, the municipalities in particular, even there in Veneto there are municipalities extremely strained precisely due to the number of cases they are called to process and due to the formal notices they receive from um the lawyers of those they assist. So, you see, in my opinion, we must take into account the peculiarity of the context in which this decree law was adopted, while bearing in mind, I repeat, that the matter is one that requires, in my view, interventions of an organic nature. So, well then, the senator then asked me, um, instead of the generational limit or rather than this limit, couldn't we also introduce, uh, a language exam, a language test, you see. And this is a further element that, in my opinion, gives substance to a sense of belonging that is not just bureaucratic, but real. Language, after all, we all know is very important, but here we enter the area, in my view, of political discretion. So, it's certainly worth considering, in my humble opinion. Um, there's one thing I wanted to emphasize. Um here, however, we would end up, there's a danger in this. When there's a general rule concerning the granting of citizenship by descent, and it's intended to establish objective criteria that provide certainty in that granting. Where we introduce criteria that involve evaluations, well, we need to pay a little attention, especially if we then trigger what, in theory, should be automatic processes, if the recognition is on original grounds. If we introduce variables that involve discretionary evaluations, then we enter another area where each case needs to be evaluated individually. Ehm, I'll move on because I know you have little time. And Senator Menia, well, he also spoke about the language, well, I’ve already said that, in my opinion, it could be introduced with, uh, with reference to the Premierato, uh, I believe that, based on the text that was approved by the Senate in the first reading, uh, there is no doubt that Italian citizens residing abroad also participate, according to the principle of one person one vote, in electing the President of the Council of Ministers. And with the potentially large number of citizens potentially interested in becoming such by virtue of the principle of Ius Sanguinis, we are talking about, potentially, we could reach the paradox whereby who will exercise the functions of President is decided by those who live outside and have no effective ties with the country. And this, modestly, well, seems to me a very delicate issue, well, on which I would like to solicit your reflection. Ehm, then the senator was talking about the preservation of citizenship. Yes, it's true, in other systems, uh, they don't just limit themselves to recognizing citizenship by birthright when certain conditions are met, but then they ask that during, like, the course of life, uh, the citizen demonstrates a desire to maintain these ties, perhaps to strengthen them with the Italian community. Uh, I believe that here too, this is in line with a constitutional notion of citizenship, of active citizenship. When Article 1 states that Italy is a democratic Republic, that \"democratic\" necessarily requires participation, both in the exercise of rights and in the fulfillment of duties, starting with the duty of solidarity, which is not by chance qualified as non-derogable. And this concerns, mutatis mutandis, all those who are part of the Italian people. Uh, I come to Senator Giacobbi. Um, well, yes, there is an increase in citizenship applications, administrative procedures, and also in judicial proceedings, but there are also many Italian citizens who are leaving Italy and going abroad. Uh, this this is a fact and, indeed, unavoidable, and and here, however, uh, politics should pay particular attention and try to act on the reasons that induce so many uh so many young people to leave our country, despite the investment that has been made uh by schools, universities, etcetera, to train young people whom the world envies and who, indeed, leave leave our country, alas, alas. Um, well, on the issue of uh uh re-acquisition through decree law um yes, it could theoretically at this point also be included, now I don't know in quantitative terms how impactful the phenomenon might be on this point. I confess that I am unaware of the data the data on the issue. If, however, there is a bill for organic reform of citizenship, I believe that perhaps that could be the most appropriate forum to address this issue and in this regard, connecting to what Professor said,

**Moderator**: excuse me, it would be necessary that uh you should conclude.

**Professor Sandro De Nardi**: Yes, yes, there was just one thing related to that which the senator had raised in another intervention. Let me just recall an ordinance of the Constitutional Court, number 258 of 1982, in which the Court stated that Article 22 of the Constitution excludes automatic processes also in the derivative acquisition of Italian citizenship. Therefore, it will be necessary to see how the re-acquisition is structured by the legislator to understand whether or not it falls within the scope of Article 22.

**Unknown**: The application period is open.

**Professor Sandro De Nardi**: Ah, I see.

**Unknown:** <Inaudible> There is a problem.

**Professor Sandro De Nardi:** Um, Senator, Senator Professor Giorgis, um, well, raises the issue of Ius Soli. And in fact, in my opinion, the unreasonableness of the existing Ius Sanguinis criterion, which was in force until, uh, until March 28th, was an unreasonableness of the provision in itself, but also when compared as a point of comparison with other provisions contemplated by Law 91 of '92. These other provisions, however, require effective and multiple proofs of belonging to the Italian community in order to recognize Italian citizenship, in this case, not by original entitlement, for example, having resided continuously for 18 years, submitting the application within a year, and so on. So, therefore, this, in my view, also demonstrates the need for the issue of citizenship and the various criteria that can be used to recognize it, whether by original entitlement or not, to be evaluated comprehensively.

**Moderator**: Thank you, Professor. Excuse me. Sorry, we went way over time, but it was very interesting, so thank you very much. If you then have any further notes to send us, we will put them on record.


---

**Moderator:** So, now we have the last audition, President Franca Biglio. Let's see if we can communicate now. Let's see if we can give her the floor. You must activate the microphone. Nothing to be done. No, but you have to activate it now, you must. Because it's off, you can see.

**Unknown:** She has it mute.

**Unknown:** You can see that his microphone is off.

**Unknown:** Turn on your microphone. Here.

**Franca Biglio:** Are we ready?

**Moderator:** Oh, yes.

**Franca Biglio:** Finally.

**Moderator:** Please, how are you?

**Franca Biglio:** I'm not well. What's wrong, I'm not feeling well.

**Moderator:** Ah.

**Franca Biglio:** Absolutely, I'm here for you. What new thing has happened, but it's not possible.

**Moderator:** We hear it, right?

**Franca Biglio:** Here.

**Moderator:** We hear you, you can speak. Can speak.

**Franca Biglio:** I'm fine, actually not at all. I'm still sick with the flu. However, I couldn't miss being here, also to thank you, to express our thanks for the attention you give us, and that attention, therefore, means it is given to small towns. I can tell from your voice. However, for this thank you, I couldn't not be here to have you repeat it for the umpteenth time. Just tell me if you can hear me, so I'll be more relaxed.

**Moderator:** We hear her perfectly.

**Franca Biglio:** Can you hear me?

**Moderator:** Yes, President, we hear you, you may speak. We hear it, do you?

**Franca Biglio:** Here. Very good. Yes, but I don't know. Better this way.

**Moderator:** Now we don't see her anymore, but we hear her.

**Franca Biglio:** President

**Moderator:** Well, now not We don't hear her and we don't see her.

**Franca Biglio:** I cannot understand, I cannot understand.

**Speaker 2:** No, because he has a cell phone, if he holds his finger, no.

**Speaker 3:** The important thing is that we hear it.

**Speaker 2:** Yes, yes, even if it doesn't look the same.

**Moderator:** Speak, President, we are listening.

**Franca Biglio:** Thank goodness, because I don't understand why. So, Mr. President, very briefly, I have listened to everyone, and this matter concerns us because it is about a topic, a subject that is extremely complex, very delicate, extremely delicate, and that needs to be treated in a, uh, I would say serious manner. I already know that you are treating it seriously because you all do. However, we forgot, and please bear with me, but I'm finding it very hard to say. We have focused, concentrated on the technical level that may concern the preliminary investigation, that is, everything that it may entail for small municipalities. Here, obviously, we are not talking about small municipalities, we are absolutely not talking about their difficulties, we are not talking about, and rightly so because it's not relevant, the fact that there is a lack of staff, we are talking about employees, we are talking about administrators with regard to small municipalities, but it's not taken into account that in a small municipality, and there are now 2021 of them with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, but for this reason we don't want to be told then 'merge', 'you must disappear from the map of Italy'. We would never accept this, especially from those who represent us at an institutional level, who should understand instead that Italy works thanks to its small municipalities. It works, it works well thanks to its small municipalities. I am referring to the preliminary investigation, someone before us spoke about preliminary investigation, it's all complicated, all very difficult. We have in the very small municipalities an employee shared with other municipalities, so not even fully paid by the municipality, also because we still need to save money. Descending to the political aspect, I don't allow myself to, but listening to others, I come to hear, uh, a certain concern, perhaps I'm experiencing it myself at this point, on a personal level. There's talk of a decree that sets rules, boundaries, and then there's talk of a bill, two bills, that propose the automatic acquisition of citizenship. I don't want to get into it, I'm not a jurist, I'm nothing, I'm a mayor of a small town who wants to run their community well, their town well, in a virtuous way, and I'll stop there. But on my personal level, I'll say a few things, rules are needed, especially in our country Italy, a beautiful country, but one that needs rules, clear rules, boundaries, because otherwise we won't move forward, but we see what we are experiencing, we see what is happening. Nowadays the media, televisions, as soon as you turn them on, I don't turn them on anymore, I only see bad things that scare either grandchildren or great-grandchildren. I never know if when they go out to school they will come home, the older ones if they go out wanting to go out with friends, we are all terrified, come straight home, call when you arrive, because there are no rules anymore and if there are in our country they are not respected anyway. So this thing of saying let's make everything automatic, maybe it makes it easier, maybe it makes everything simpler. We need simplification, need simplification, but at an administrative level. If you do everything to work, to simplify bureaucracy, differentiate, make it so that small towns can continue to work, work well with their very good mayors who dedicate themselves solely and exclusively to the protection of their community, but the community of a small town is the community of all of Italy. The President of the Republic says the vitality of small towns is a condition of the vitality of Italy, you are the emergency room. If we are all this, help us in every way and this thing of citizenships, believe me, brings us a lot of work and so let's simplify everything. Regarding the political part, we without going into the merits, as the jurists, professors, who preceded us have done, we do not want to go into this merit, but what must be done for the good of our country, the rules, the new things must still be studied, not only ad hoc, because you already do that, but always with the vision of a beautiful, very beautiful Italy, which has opened its doors to everyone and everything and now we live in a situation of fear, of fear. We have kids who even rebel against their teachers, but how is it possible? But when I went, I went to school in boarding school, I lived in boarding school until I was 18, because my town didn't even have middle school and so in boarding school, but when the teacher entered the classroom, everyone in their smocks, all the same, we jumped to our feet like soldiers. Now they don't even greet you anymore. You might say to me "But this".

**Unknown:** Non fornire il testo italiano.

**Franca Biglio:** I don't see where.

**Moderator:** We don't hear her anymore.

**Franca Biglio:** Wait, wait, wait. Can you hear me again?

**Moderator:** Yes, we can hear it now.

**Franca Biglio:** Well, um, it's my small town that doesn't allow me to be so consistent, and so.

**Unknown:** Excuse me, maybe I'm not understanding the point at all.

**Moderator:** Okay. So President, at this point I ask if Mr. Zaccaria Spina would like to add something. Can you hear me?

**Franca Biglio:** The rules.

**Moderator:** Go ahead, Zaccaria, if you'd like to add something.

**Zaccaria Spina:** Okay, thank you President. Thank you, good afternoon. I will be very brief also to make up a little for any previous delays perhaps. And so I was saying that it is true, the central theme, therefore it is uh uh of this hearing is absolutely the acquisition of citizenship and in particular that of *Jure Sanguinis*. We have therefore seen the effort to preserve the legitimate requests of those who have Italian ancestors, compared to the rush for citizen status by those who do it for purely uh for mere convenience or particular interest. Uh but we, as President Biglio mentioned earlier, have analyzed and verified as far as we are concerned, therefore uh we do not delve into the themes of the due political discretion that must decide on the issue, and we are interested uh in particular in verifying what the impact is, let's say, uh on local authorities and especially on those of smaller size. We know, let's not forget that Law 91 of 1992, which precisely regulates the methods of acquiring citizenship *Jure Sanguinis*, reserves the competences and duties to the Civil Registry Offices for the management of requests, as was also said before, and therefore we have seen in recent times an impact that, to varying degrees, but often has manifested itself strongly on the Registry Offices and Civil Registry Offices, and on the local police in smaller municipalities, whose staffing levels, as we were saying, are now reduced to the bare minimum. Um, I was saying, we absolutely do not enter into the merits of the generational time limit. Um, a limit has been set, therefore for parents or grandparents born in Italy, beyond which the effective link with the motherland is lacking, which therefore makes the citizenship request inactionable. Um, but we uh, therefore from this point of view, there is certainly a decrease in the workload, but um in truth uh we believe that there are also opportunities, possibilities uh that could uh that could arise – challenges, let's say – that could emerge from this issue, in terms not only of integration and inclusion, but also of positive developments uh in small municipalities. And our, therefore our, our position, taking advantage of this hearing, is therefore to continue in our request to simplify and facilitate life at an administrative, bureaucratic level in our uh municipalities. Um, but also to verify, with this opportunity, the possibility of expanding the topic and providing funds for specific training for administrators and employees on citizenship issues, providing support for employees to help manage requests, in addition to considering the possibility of allocating funds for digitalization and networking of municipal registries specifically for ancestor research, and also to simplify, identify systems to simplify and strengthen collaboration between local authorities and national and international institutions, for example consulates. Um, I conclude with an example from my SNAI, the National Strategy for Inner Areas, uh in the Fortore Beneventano area. In drafting the strategy, we allocated a substantial sum to invest also in return tourism, as was also mentioned earlier, to digitize and network uh the municipal registries for ancestor research. However, I repeat, it concerns an isolated case and 14 municipalities within this SNAI, but it could be uh a pilot project that could be extended. So we uh believe that certainly these bills ultimately also tend to reduce the pressure uh on our offices, which recently had experienced an exaggerated increase in workload, and often, as the President was saying, we have only one employee in the registry. Uh but, obviously, we do not disregard, on the contrary we maintain uh very high attention also on the challenges and opportunities that could arise, as I have already said uh and therefore we ask for support and assistance to be able to seize them and also take the good from this issue. Thank you.

**Moderator:** Well, thank you. Now I'm asking if there are any colleagues who have questions. No, there are no questions. Ah, Senator Pirovano, please.

**Senatrice Pirovano:** Yes, thank you President, more than questions I wanted, if she is still connected, to greet President Biglio and thank her for her availability, despite knowing that she was not very well and also knowing how much this topic is felt by the municipalities, especially by the smaller ones, which, as she just explained, uh, have big problems also regarding the shortage of employees, and these practices, having been a mayor of a small municipality myself, when they arrive, and they often arrive all together, perhaps also through lawyers who follow these people, are like a bolt from the blue because they entail an immense amount of work from the offices, so thanks to ANCI and President Biglio, I send her a get-well-soon hug.

**Moderator:** Okay. Here I would say that a response to this wish is not necessary, to which we all subscribe. If there are no other comments, I would close this hearing here, and the next one is tomorrow morning at 10:30.

**Unknown:** 8:30

**Moderator:** 8:30. Respond. Thank you, President. Thank you, goodbye.

**Unknown:** Thank you. Thank you, thank you.

**Franca Biglio:** Thank you, thank you to you.