The regulation of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis needed to be updated.

To deny this would be to ignore a reality that has become evident in recent years. The exponential increase in applications, the difficulties of the Consulates, the overload of the Municipalities, and the growth of judicial litigation made an intervention necessary to adapt the system to the scale reached by the phenomenon.

The problem was not the need for reform. The problem was the way in which it was chosen to implement it.

A subject so delicate deserved an organic review, built on clear criteria and designed to last over time. Instead, intervention took place through a regulatory path that immediately produced new interpretative issues, new litigation, and questions that today even involve the higher Courts.

A reform could have asked for more without erasing the bond

There was another way.

The legislator could have made access to the declaration of citizenship more rigorous without affecting the principle of iure sanguinis in such a radical way.

More could have been asked of each interested party.

More knowledge of Italy, greater awareness of the meaning of citizenship, and a more concrete personal participation in the procedure.

A first element could have been knowledge of the Italian language.

If the political objective was to prevent citizenship from being perceived exclusively as a tool to obtain a European passport, it would have been possible to require those wishing to have their status declared to have an effective knowledge of the language and, possibly, of the fundamental elements of Italian culture and legal system.

A solution of this kind would have filtered applications more effectively without breaking the legal and historical relationship between Italy and entire generations of its descendants.

More responsibility for those applying for citizenship

Reforming does not necessarily mean restricting through genealogical criteria.

It also means empowering.

Stricter documentary requirements, more structured procedures, and obligations capable of demonstrating a genuine interest in the Country could have been introduced.

Citizenship could have been accompanied by a more demanding path.

Those who wish to be declared Italian citizens could be called upon to demonstrate that they know and understand the Country to which they are asking to legally belong.

This would have allowed for a more effective distinction between those who maintain an authentic interest in Italy and those who view citizenship merely as a documentary advantage.

The citizenship market also deserved a response

In recent years, a huge international market of services has also developed around Italian citizenship.

This phenomenon deserved specific attention.

Legal assistance should not be treated like any other commercial product. The legal profession is subject to principles, responsibilities, ethical duties, and rules on professional communication.

The international dimension of these files certainly makes it more difficult to govern phenomena that originate or are advertised outside of Italy.

For this very reason, it would have been appropriate to strengthen cooperation with the authorities and professional bodies of other Countries, respecting their respective laws, to counter any abusive practices or forms of promotion incompatible with the nature of the professional activity carried out.

The response to the uncontrolled growth of the phenomenon did not necessarily have to be the restriction of the rights of entire categories of descendants.

It could also have been to better regulate everything that had developed around it.

A law that generates new litigation does not solve the problem

One of the most evident consequences of the reform is paradoxical.

A regulation that should have contributed to reducing the pressure on the system has opened up legal questions so significant as to require new interventions by the courts.

Courts of first instance, Courts of Appeal, Court of Cassation, Constitutional Court, and now even European Union law are entering, from different perspectives, a debate that seems far from concluded.

When a reform intended to simplify a problem generates a new season of litigation, it is legitimate to ask whether the tool used was truly the most appropriate one.

It will, of course, be up to the competent courts to establish the legal boundaries of the various open issues.

But the very fact that such questions exist demonstrates how much a more thoughtful and systematic reform would have been preferable.

Italy risks weakening one of its largest communities in the world

Finally, there is an issue that goes beyond law.

Italy has been facing a serious demographic transformation for years. In this scenario, it simultaneously possesses something that very few Countries can boast of: a vast community of descendants scattered across the world.

Brazil, Argentina, the United States, Canada, Australia, and numerous other Countries are home to families in which surnames, traditions, family ties, and interest in Italy have survived for generations.

Of course, descending from an Italian does not automatically mean knowing contemporary Italy or participating in its social life.

And this was precisely where a good reform could have intervened.

Instead of distancing these descendants, Italy could have asked them to draw closer.

To learn the language. To know the Country. To understand its institutions. To maintain a concrete relationship with Italy.

Turning descent into participation would have been, in my view, a much more ambitious response.

A generational issue as well

Limiting the relationship with descendants takes on an even more specific meaning at a time when Italy must face low birth rates, an aging population, and profound social transformations.

It is not a matter of contrasting those who arrive in Italy today with those who descend from Italians who left in the past.

These are different phenomena and must be addressed with different tools.

The issue is different.

A Country that must build its own future should ask itself if it is truly in its interest to weaken the relationship with millions of people who already possess a historical and family bond with it.

A far-sighted policy could have turned that community into a cultural, economic, and demographic resource, while simultaneously asking descendants for a greater commitment to Italy.

A mistake that can still be corrected

I believe that this phase does not necessarily represent the final point in the history of iure sanguinis.

Laws change. Jurisprudence evolves. Courts intervene, and even the legislator can recognize the need to correct previous decisions.

I believe that the mistake made can still be corrected.

What will remain, however, is the way in which a fundamental matter like citizenship was addressed in one of the most delicate moments of its recent history.

It could have been reformed.

It could have been much more rigorous.

Language, knowledge, participation, documentation, and responsibility could have been required.

It was possible to intervene on the abuses and distortions that had developed around the system.

And all this could have been done without suddenly transforming the relationship between Italy and a significant portion of its descendants worldwide.

The real reform should not have asked only how to limit iure sanguinis, but how to make it more serious, more responsible, and closer to Italy.