As with all things created using auto-generated captions, translations, and AI, I cannot guarantee that the below document is free from errors or inaccuracies and disclaim responsibility for any errors, inaccuracies, and misinterpretations. The content is provided as-is. Please verify the content using the original video link here.
Moderator: ...and obviously limited to questions. In any case, priority is given to the ability to modulate the timing of the speeches. We can be a little more flexible because we had planned for four speakers, but we will only have three.
Alright, let’s begin with Dr. Michele Monaco, who is present here. Are you—yes, you are.
Actually, the colleague should go first.
Moderator (cont'd): Yes, but please, since you are here—and you may have to catch a train—and your colleagues are joining remotely and don’t have time constraints, if no one has specific commitments, I would start with Dr. Michele Monaco. Is that alright?
Doctor, you are the national vice president of the scientific research and higher education institution?
Dr. Monaco: National president, exactly. President.
Moderator: Thank you.
Dr. Monaco: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, honorable senators. I speak on behalf of the syndicate and employers' association of trainers and institutions of professional training and legally recognized higher university education.
Specifically, I wish to comment on the text of Bill 1432. I read with attention the excellent technical report accompanying the bill, which I found particularly accurate and fitting, especially in Chapter Four, where it outlines aspects derived from the recognition of Italian citizenship by iure sanguinis. I congratulate the Foreign Minister, Hon. Antonio Tajani, for the diligent work carried out in the recognition of citizenship rights.
However, I must point out that the draft decree under examination raises significant constitutional concerns that require urgent attention, particularly regarding the measure limiting the number of applications for recognition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis. The Italian Constitution, specifically Article 3, and more broadly Article 22, enshrines fundamental principles of equality and protection of personal identity, prohibiting discrimination. This includes discrimination based on arbitrary elements, such as a maximum number of applications allowed or time limits for their acceptance.
The introduction in the bill of a predetermined time limit for accepting applications risks clearly violating these principles. Such a cap implies that once the limit is reached, additional applications are automatically rejected or indefinitely postponed, representing an unjustified numerical exclusion. The justification given in the text refers to the difficulty faced by consular offices in handling the high number of requests compared to their operational capacity.
Moreover, time limitations on applications could undermine the right to citizenship as a subjective, perfect, inalienable, and imprescriptible right, already recognized by the Supreme Court of Cassation in the United Sections ruling No. 25317 of 2022, which states that status civitatis acquired by blood has a permanent nature and cannot be subjected to arbitrary or administrative constraints.
It should also be noted that numerical and temporal limitations risk violating Article 24 of the Constitution regarding the judicial protection of rights, introducing bureaucratic obstacles that significantly and potentially irreversibly limit the exercise of constitutionally recognized citizenship rights.
While these are legal points, I must also share my personal experience in Latin America. I had the honor of accompanying an international delegation to Argentina, along with honorable members of Parliament. This experience deepened my awareness—being the son of an emigrant—of the children of our compatriots who remain rooted in their traditions and in the memory of an Italy that, unfortunately, no longer exists. Yes, unfortunately, the Italy they remember no longer exists, but it lives in their memories, or better yet, in the memories of their ancestors passed down to their descendants.
To them, Italy is synonymous with beauty; traditions are seen as active points of reference. Italian private schools abroad are cultural forges and points of reference—a cultural beacon. Parents willingly pay around 400–500 euros or dollars monthly to teach their children the Italian language and culture, preserving the memory of our best traditions.
Visiting these private schools, I was amazed. I was moved to discover preschool children singing “Rino Canterino” to our delegation in perfect Italian. A primary school girl asked me what we usually do on Dante Alighieri Day. I had trouble answering, even though I knew the ministerial guidelines for the occasion. I simply didn’t want to disappoint her, so I replied dryly that we celebrate the great poet on March 25th with events, performances, and moments of reflection on his works. I would have liked to say more—but it would have been a lie.
And don’t be surprised if in secondary schools you hear them reciting "Il Cinque Maggio", "Il Sabato del Villaggio", "A Silvio", or some tercets from Dante’s Inferno. Don't be surprised if you learn that an Italian immigrant helped build the Buenos Aires stock exchange, or that more than 50% of its presidents have been of Italian origin—including the current president and vice president. The current governor of the Buenos Aires metropolitan area, Dr. Macri, is the son of a great Italian doctor who worked at the Italian Hospital, founded by Italian migrants in 1853.
Also, don’t be surprised that the former rector of the second-largest university in Latin America, Professor Barbieri, is of Italian origin, or that the prestigious Belgrano University was founded by Italians. The president of COMITES (Committee of Italians Abroad) signs certificates of Italian cultural competence at that very university. Finally, let’s recall that President Milei has Italian ancestry—both paternal grandparents and his maternal grandmother.
We shouldn't be surprised, because out of 45.5 million Argentines, about 60% have Italian ancestry—most of them proud of our country, its beauty, history, and traditions. They are organized into Italian clubs—not only in Latin America, but also in Europe, Australia, Africa, and other continents.
Given this abundance of illustrious fellow countrymen, our association couldn't fail to co-fund with the Italian Embassy a professional training project for our compatriots residing in Argentina. This was provided by the Center for Advanced Studies at the University of Buenos Aires, a program aimed at strengthening cultural ties with Italy and reinforcing future governance connections between Italy and Argentina.
I conclude by saying I read the reasons behind our nation's intervention in Africa under the Mattei Plan. One of the most sacred goals is ensuring the fundamental right of people to remain in their homeland and not be forced to emigrate to support their families and nations. Therefore, dear Senators, I urge the Constitutional Affairs Committee to promptly intervene to review not only the legal aspect—eliminating all numerical and temporal limits—and instead ensure a fair and transparent process for citizenship recognition, in line with constitutional principles of equality, legal certainty, and protection of fundamental subjective rights.
We must also balance a historical wrong: our beautiful nation denied many compatriots the right to remain and support their families in their homeland. Esteemed Senators, we are indebted to those who, in their migrants’ suitcases, carried not just a few garments, maybe photos of loved ones and some personal items, but also—and above all—our values. The values of great Italians who made our country great and contributed to the development of other nations.
If we wish to claim we are a great country, let us remember our debt of gratitude to them and their descendants. Yes, let’s implement policies to safeguard budgets. Let’s also implement policies to deter opportunistic behavior and punish cheaters. But let’s also remember to honor the legitimate descendants of those Italians to whom our country failed to guarantee a future in the homeland.
In light of all this, I ask that you consider an amendment to Article 3-bis allowing anyone with an Italian ancestor from the third degree onward to request citizenship by presenting a secondary school diploma from legally recognized Italian private schools abroad. That’s the aim of this amendment.
To reinforce its political intent, one could add: “This provision aims to ensure continuity of the citizenship bond with the national community in compliance with constitutional principles and international conventions in legally recognized institutions.”
Such an amendment would provide multiple benefits to the Italian system:
With these reflections, I conclude my remarks and am available for any further questions. Thank you for your attention and time, and I hope I stayed within the allotted minutes.
Moderator: Perfect. Thank you, Dr. Monaco. Are there colleagues who have questions? Please, Senator Borghese, a question.
Moderator: Thank you, Dr. Monaco. If you would like, you may stay and listen to the other speakers. If you have other commitments, of course, you are free to go—we won’t be formal about it.
Now, let’s see if Dr. Maria Chiara Prodi is connected. She is the Secretary General of the General Council of Italians Abroad.
Dr. Prodi: Good morning, I’m connected. Good morning.
Moderator: You also have ten minutes. Afterward, there will be time for questions, and you’ll be able to respond. Thank you very much, and thank you for this opportunity for discussion, which is particularly valuable to me.
As you know, the General Council of Italians Abroad (CGE) represents Italian communities abroad to all institutions that implement policies concerning overseas communities. Article 3 of its founding law refers to the mandatory opinion the Council must provide on government proposals that affect Italians abroad.
So, I welcome this meeting both because it addresses fundamental issues and because it formally acknowledges the institutional role of the General Council of Italians Abroad.
The CGE is the only institution in the Italian Republic with an electoral base that includes Italian descendants. We are a second-level organization, with 43 elected representatives abroad and 20 appointed by the government. The elected members’ base includes only the Committees of Italians Abroad (COMITES), which are first-level institutions with elected officials in consular districts. These committees can, in turn, co-opt Italian descendants, and also include migration associations often composed of Italian descendants.
I mention all this because I believe that the Italian legal framework has taken into account the osmotic relationship between various levels of our cultural and national identity abroad. And in fact, we represent a contact point between those citizens who already have a passport and those who have strong ties to our country, though they do not yet hold a passport.
It is important to underline our role, because the law acknowledges it—not only legally, but I would say poetically—as the task of keeping a relationship alive, especially when it is being placed in crisis by a situation such as the one that occurred on March 28.
There was, on one hand, an extremely generous policy regarding citizenship. And now, suddenly, an extremely restrictive one. What I want to convey to all of you is the sense of confusion and shock at this radical shift in direction.
Our role is to maintain the bond, even when difficult decisions are made—even when we need to explain and accompany them.
The way this decree law was introduced completely removed our ability to fulfill that role—a role, I repeat, that the law grants us—to maintain a two-way relationship between the state and its citizens.
What we immediately observed was, first of all, concern from those with pending cases—requests for citizenship recognition—anxiety from those who have children already born and now don’t know if they can register them.
After the first emotional reaction faded, the legal questions remained very much intact upon reading the decree and the accompanying report.
Let me emphasize a few points:
First, the CGE was well aware of the need for reform. In fact, we made citizenship law one of our three top priorities for the first half of 2025, alongside:
These were the three themes on which we heard the most urgency—both in communities and institutions.
So I want to make it clear: there was consensus within our Council on the need for reform.
What has guided—and continues to guide—us in this semester of engagement with our communities and the counselors who represent them is the concept of an effective bond (legame effettivo).
We define this as a conscious citizenship, one that comes with:
We believed—and still believe—that these are the fundamentals, yet we don’t see them in the decree law.
Instead, we find elements that raise questions.
First, the radical nature of the change: Combining a two-generation limit with the requirement of descent from someone born in Italy is extremely restrictive.
We point this out not just because it dramatically reduces the number of eligible people in an unexpected way—people we are then expected to inform and guide—but also because of the concrete legal implications.
The decree law seems to introduce permanent, definitive changes to the legal framework—altering the future interpretation of citizenship law. For instance, it introduces the principle of being born in Italy, essentially discriminating based on residency.
This introduces new concepts into our legal and judicial system.
We are not equipped to handle this in isolation. We hear real stories—parents who could have one child recognized as Italian and another not; even senators unable to pass on citizenship to their own descendants.
We are already dealing with the fallout of this decree, both in practical and emotional terms. It affects not only those with current pending applications but also how future policies will be shaped.
We are strongly opposed to the combination of:
When we were discussing these issues internally at the CGE, there was more consensus around broader generational limits. The “born in Italy” requirement has always been problematic to us—it discriminates based on residence and raises constitutional concerns.
As for the effective bond, our position is for conscious citizenship supported by language and cultural competency, and understanding of the Constitution. These are measurable, certifiable, and encourage full participation in Italian civic life—including voting.
Let me touch on one final point: the reacquisition of citizenship.
We need your help—and we offer our help—to make this relationship between the state and its citizens more meaningful. We welcomed this hearing and the chance to also discuss reacquisition—not just the decree law. In fact, we issued a position on the decree at the end of February to support the efforts made by both majority and opposition parties on the issue of reacquisition.
We understand concerns about the size of the group affected by the previous citizenship law. That said, we believe the quality of connection matters, and we’ve proposed measures accordingly.
Regarding reacquisition, many people—particularly in Australia and Venezuela—have a deep, well-documented desire to die as Italian citizens. These are elderly individuals who emigrated after WWII and continued to support Italy through remittances and advocacy.
The same effective bond sought in the decree law also exists here.
For this reason, we urge you to address these unresolved issues—not as isolated problems, but as part of a coherent system.
We feel a moral duty to mention that when we speak with our compatriots and Italian descendants around the world, we act as guardians of a relationship. The more meaningful and hopeful that relationship is, the better.
Before March 27, the promise of the future was very explicit. We are here to remind you that thousands of people built their lives based on the rules and laws the Italian state gave them. It is crucial that we accompany them—and future citizens—in their relationship with our country.
Moderator: Thank you, Dr. Prodi. Let’s see if any colleagues have questions to ask her. Anyone?
Senator Giacobbe, please.
Senator Giacobbe: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to thank Dr. Prodi, Secretary General of the CGE, for addressing some very critical issues with clarity. The decree law is our most urgent matter because it must be finalized within 60 days. We have more time to deal with the related bills.
I wanted to ask Dr. Prodi whether the government requested an opinion from the CGE before drafting the decree law—which they should have done by law—or if instead the request only came after it was issued. From what I understand, it came afterward.
And if so, does the CGE intend to issue a formal opinion on the decree and suggest possible amendments to address the problems you’ve identified?
Also, considering that the deadline for amendments is currently April 16, do you believe it would be helpful to extend the timeline, even by a few days, especially since the last week of April is dedicated to committee work? The decree is scheduled to reach the Senate floor by May 6. A delay might allow us to submit amendments that incorporate your input and concerns.
Senator Menia: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few notes. I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Prodi in a recent hearing in the Third Committee, and of course, we discussed this very topic.
So, from my side, I ask Dr. Prodi to provide critical suggestions — that is, amendments, to be clear — from the CGE, which, in some way, must be a platform and ambassador of what Italian communities around the world are saying.
I must say, however, and this is somewhat of an appeal: we must proceed with the proper and adequate calm. While it’s true this decree has frightened some, there are serious reasons why it came into being.
Let me remind myself and Dr. Prodi — actually, amusingly enough, during the hearing in the Third Committee, a CGE member made a suggestion very similar to the one in my bill, which is currently on the table here — the difference being I referred to three generations, not two.
But the key issue is this: the principle of ius sanguinis made perfect sense when the world was static, as it was in the past. Back then, it had dignity, legitimacy, and still does — but today it needs some correction.
Let me be blunt, since we’re all people who understand the issues well: the paradox of ius sanguinis is that, if we were to approve all potential citizenship reconstruction requests, we’d end up with over 80 million potential citizens — more than the current population of Italy! That’s an obvious paradox.
Why? Because if you go back five generations, factoring in geometric progression — children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren — you generate enormous numbers. What you get is a population outside of Italy that may have Italian roots, yes, but often… well, look — the professor earlier described some beautiful things, and I too am moved when someone speaks good Italian or sings old Italian songs. But let’s be honest: those people are a minority compared to the whole.
Personally, I believe knowledge of the Italian language is fundamental for a real citizenship connection. The paradox is wanting to be affirmed as Italian citizens without knowing a single word of Italian, or anything about the history of your great-grandparents, or even where Italy is on the map.
So, we need to look at this realistically.
On the one hand, stop the shameful market of citizenships — which, as we know, existed until now. This decree intervenes on that.
And yes, I support amendments and corrective measures — I will personally advocate for some of them, which I believe are useful and necessary.
Keep in mind, though, the government has also announced a citizenship reform bill that is a different and much broader undertaking.
So, let’s apply the necessary corrections to the decree.
I call on the CGE — that’s why you’re being heard here — to be the interpreter, advocate, and proposer of amendments. Let’s aim to reach a shared solution to a problem where, quite frankly, it was reasonable for the government to intervene — even by decree — because the urgency was real. This explosion in applications no longer reflected a truereality of Italian citizens abroad.
As you know, Dr. Prodi, as president of the CGE, we’re still discussing outdated numbers, but as of last January we had 7.1 million citizens abroad. The growth is geometric.
Thank you.
Moderator: Thank you, Senator Menia. Anyone else?
No? Then, Dr. Prodi, if you’d like to briefly reply, go ahead.
Dr. Maria Chiara Prodi’s Response:
Thank you very much. First of all, thank you for these comments and for the meetings we had last week, both with Senator Giacobbe and Senator Menia. Last week, we were in Rome for our CGE Presidential Committee, and during that meeting, we defined our position, which focuses specifically on the two critical points: the “born in Italy” clause and the two-generation limit.
On those two fronts, we are already ready to submit our opinion, in amendment format, if needed.
Clearly, having a few extra days would help. We are an organization that — coincidentally — had already scheduled its Presidential Committee last week and happened to be in the right place at the right time. We seized the opportunity.
On the topic of urgency and necessity — yes, there are objective foundations for those arguments, but there is also a political choice behind it. So I welcome the fact that this is an opportunity to reaffirm the central role of the General Council of Italians Abroad and the importance of requesting our mandatory opinions — which I confirm were requested, and we want to respond to them quickly.
I also encourage you to help ensure we are included when it comes to requesting opinions on bills, not just decrees. We have an open window on this issue until our plenary assembly from June 16–20 in Rome, which will bring all our councilors together.
Of course, the pace of parliamentary proceedings is fast, and we will do our best to maintain a formal and ongoing dialogue with you. The speed of these developments is at odds with the limited resources we have — including financial ones — which make it hard to meet physically or even virtually. We operate across 15 time zones, so organizing a plenary meeting is incredibly complex.
Thank you again for your questions.
So, to be clear:
Instead, it is an emergency response to an administrative management issue.
Of course, that is understandable. We, too, had flagged the need for reform. There is no doubt about that.
The urgency, however… it’s something we can guess at. We don’t have concrete data for it. But a law that’s been in effect since 1992, and upon which millions have built legitimate expectations, only now becomes urgent because problems are coming to a head.
So a more orderly and collaborative approach between our state institutions would surely benefit everyone.
Therefore, we confirm: we will submit our opinion, and we are ready to move quickly. We ask only that it be incorporated into your reflections.
Finally, we’d appreciate more transparency about the underlying rationale and data for these decisions. We’d like to provide feedback not just on the decree text, but also on the accompanying report, which does not clearly distinguish between different migration patterns. Instead, it attempts to apply one-size-fits-all solutions, which might create legal precedents with unintended consequences for other categories of Italians or their descendants.
Let me end by returning to the topic of relationships — because we are the same people you hope to convince to return to Italy, to repopulate rural areas, to enroll in Italian universities.
Even if emotional or symbolic, these relationships must be acknowledged. And here, the philosophical and historical underpinnings of citizenship law matter. What we’re lacking right now is a clear future vision that includes these concerns—not only in this decree law, but in the broader transformation that may follow.
We have a duty to raise these concerns in order to fulfill our legal responsibilities.
Moderator: Thank you, Dr. Prodi. If you wish to send us any additional insights or amendment proposals, we would gladly consider them.
Now let’s continue. We have Dr. Daniel Taddone, also a counselor with the General Council of Italians Abroad and president of the Nati Italiani Association.
You also have 10 minutes. Please, go ahead.
Dr. Daniel Taddone’s Testimony:
Hello, good morning everyone. I hope you can hear me well.
I’m speaking to you from São Paulo, Brazil, which, as you know, is one of the cities in the world with the largest number of people of Italian origin—just like across much of central and southern Brazil.
This is a very large community. Exact numbers are difficult to determine, but estimates suggest 30 to 40 million descendants.
I’d like to offer my contribution to this hearing, also in a personal capacity, and I ask for your patience because I’m not very familiar with these formal settings in the Senate.
Still, I believe it’s important to remember our migration history, even if it might seem a bit sentimental or overly nostalgic to some. I believe it is also a duty.
Because, even after many years, in our countries — Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia, the United States — love for Italy remains strong. Even if the idea of Italy we carry no longer exists in the same way, it’s still part of our daily lives.
Even if many do not speak Italian fluently — or at all — the idea of being Italian is deeply present in everyday life.
When we go to a doctor’s office and someone sees our surname and says, “Ah, you’re Italian too — my grandfather was from Molise, or Calabria” — these moments mean something.
…And of course, as I said, maybe it sounds like a very personal, even emotional take on the matter — but it is important that Italy does not forget this heritage that exists in our diaspora communities. Because this heritage is far greater than most Italians living in Italy might realize.
This pride in being of Italian descent is a daily reality for us, present in everything from small interactions to big life events.
As Dr. Michele Monaco mentioned about the Italian communities in Argentina, I’d like to share something about the community here in Brazil.
Next to me is my university diploma from the University of São Paulo, the largest university in Latin America. In terms of enrollment and international rankings, it is a major institution.
From the very beginning, this university included many Italian professors — one example is Giuseppe Ungaretti. Of the last six rectors at the University of São Paulo, three were of Italian origin.
The person who signed my diploma, back in 2003, was Adolfo Melfi, a man of Lucanian descent, and many more followed. The current rector is Professor Carlotti, also of Italian descent.
So this heritage exists and should be valued by Italy, also as part of its soft power around the world.
Why? Because countries like Spain, Portugal, the UK, and France had colonies, and they spread their languages and cultures globally — including here in Brazil, where we speak Portuguese, and in the rest of Latin America, where Spanish is dominant.
Italy never had true colonies in the same way — but it did pursue a policy of migratory colonialism at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. And that policy included citizenship.
Major historical figures like Leone Caetani, Sidney Sonnino, Francesco Saverio Nitti, and Luigi Einaudi all supported this idea of migratory colonialism — and Italy’s citizenship laws reflect that.
Whether it was the 1865 Civil Code, or the law of 1912, or the current law from 1992, the legislator intended for citizenship law to maintain a lasting link with Italians abroad.
And I make this point because it’s crucial to understand: the effects of citizenship laws were not accidental, but deliberate. They were the result of legislative will.
Furthermore, laws — as provided for in both the 1865 and 1942 Civil Codes — should not operate retroactively. They should apply only to the future. This is something the current decree law violates.
Because this decree essentially wants to go back in time and reclassify millions of people as non-Italians — people who were already covered under prior laws.
Let me give a very personal example.
I am a second-generation Italian citizen. I have a nine-year-old daughter, Filippa, who is Italian. My wife is also Italian. We are a family of three Italians.
But if we decide to have another child, under this decree, I would no longer be able to pass on my citizenship. Because as a second-generation Italian, I wouldn’t meet the new requirements.
This child — not yet born — would be treated as the son or daughter of someone not born in Italy, and because I have not lived in Italy for two uninterrupted years, I would be disqualified from passing on citizenship.
And yet, as you can see, I speak Italian. I was educated in it, I live it daily, and still, I would be barred from transmitting my own citizenship. That simply is not justice.
I cannot leave my job and life behind in Brazil to go live two full years in Italy. That’s not realistic. And historically, Italy’s citizenship laws have never been tied to territory. The legislator never intended to make it about residence — not in 1865, not in 1912, not in 1992.
So how can we now, suddenly, make a complete 180-degree turn?
One more point: In his 18-minute, 27-second press conference, Minister Tajani did not say a single positive word about our communities. Instead, we were labeled as:
This was a deep wound for our diaspora. A wound we may have difficulty healing. I truly hope Parliament can heal it — because that press conference was deeply painful for many of us.
Are there problems? Yes, some agencies are abusing the process, and I agree we must address that. But these agencies do not sell citizenship — they sell services. There is a demand for services because the system is so outdated.
In Italy, we still rely on an archaic transcription system for civil records. Unlike Spain or Portugal, which digitized long ago, in Italy everything must be handwritten from start to finish, even foreign documents. This is absurd in 2025.
So there were many missed opportunities to modernize the system. And now we’ve jumped to a decree that revokes the citizenship of people already entitled to it — including children not even born yet.
Two last points:
1. Spain made a minor reform to its citizenship law in 2002.
2. Germany did so in 2000.
In both cases, changes were made only for the future, not the past. That’s how it should be. Italy must do the same.
I propose a language test in the future — for example, requiring people to take a B1-level Italian exam within 3, 5, or 10 years of recognition.
The key is: don’t revoke the rights of those already covered. Let’s create a new pact — one that recognizes that we, the diaspora, are ready to demonstrate our bond with Italy.
We are not fake Italians. We are real Italians. And we are willing to prove it.
Let me close by saying this: these new Italian citizens abroad — almost a million in Brazil, over a million in Argentina — are, by and large, at the top of the social pyramid in their countries.
They are valuable, highly-educated, and often economically strong. They represent a tremendous soft power asset for Italy — one that Italy still hasn’t fully understood.
Here in Brazil, even people who don’t speak Italian prefer to buy Italian products — because of the emotional and cultural connection.
That love is real. And that Italian identity is deeply felt. We’re ready to carry Italy’s name forward — proudly and always.
Moderator: Thank you, Doctor. Thank you for your moving and important testimony.
If you would like to send us further written contributions, we will gladly accept them.
Now, colleagues, are there any questions?
Senator (unnamed): This isn’t a question — just a compliment. I didn’t know Dr. Taddone, but I believe he raised the issues very clearly and simply, especially the effects of this decree law.
Though, I’d like clarification — was this a second intervention on behalf of the CGE? Or was Dr. Taddone speaking on behalf of his association?
He’s not officially representing the CGE here, right?
Moderator: Correct — he is a CGE member, but today he is speaking as president of the Nati Italiani association.
Moderator: Please, Dr. Taddone — any clarification?
Dr. Taddone: Yes, of course. I was invited — and very honored — to speak in my capacity as president of the Nati Italiani Association, which aims to protect the citizenship rights of the Italian diaspora.
I am also a counselor at the CGE, but here I am not representing it formally — I speak also as a representative of the vast Italian community in Brazil, and I’d even say in South America.
Once again, I want to stress: we are ready for a new pact of coexistence between Italy and its diaspora.
And I urge Parliament to honor the will of the lawmakers who came before — who shaped citizenship laws that had lasting legal effects.
If we want to write a new law, fine — but let’s ensure that those who already qualify under the old laws continue to retain their rights.
Because this decree law, contrary to what some say, severs the bond completely. As I mentioned earlier: I, a second-generation Italian, can no longer pass on citizenship to my future child. And this is the case for many people.
And let me repeat one final point: the generational limit is the least intelligent way to filter new citizenships.
I know our communities in Brazil very well. I’ve been working on these issues for 32 years, since 1993. And I’ve met many children of Italian-born citizens who don’t speak a word of Italian.
At the same time, I’ve met great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren who do speak Italian — or even dialects.
So if we want to set a filter, let it be based on something intelligent: language, culture, civics.
And I can assure you, based on my conversations with many people, that if you say: "In five years, you’ll need to pass a language and civics test" — the vast majority will agree. They are ready to prove their Italian identity.
Italy must understand: these people are ready to be part of the national community.
Moderator: Thank you, Doctor. Your testimony was powerful and very meaningful.
If you would like to submit additional written materials, we will gladly receive them.
Have a good day.
Now, colleagues, we will suspend the session and reconvene at 13:30 to hear from the next four speakers of the day.
13:30 it is.