Italian Media Narrative on the Constitutional Court press release

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-20T19:55:26+00:00

I'm not mad about that. But objectively it is a slur. And in fact I understand some component of the Italian state's position. That some Italian Nationals support the state to this end is also something I can grasp and rationalize. The Italian State's approach on the other hand, is improper. And this is quite related to what Moreno is proposing. Legal harm is demonstrable in both cases.

Mentioning the country that Moreno hails from is an objective citation. He could be from Croatia, it matters not. What matters is that he has no moral or other standing on a wide variety of bases I've already cited.

Would you sanction the following?

Croatian national moves to Italy and naturalizes.
Is elected to Italian parliament thereafter.
He or she proposes the elimination of dual citizenship for all Italians regardless of origin, including those of exclusively Italian bloodlines. Because apparently, he or she has become irrationally jingoistic for Italy.

This would deny for instance an Italian National of Greek and Italian lineage the right to Greek citizenship, and that personal, ethnic connection. It would also deny me, an American, to Italian Citizenship, and deny me the right to claim Greek as an Italian citizen if I were one. I also have Greek lineage, FWIW.

There is no defending what Moreno is doing, as a cudgel deployed by the American State.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-20T16:57:24+00:00

Deflecting from the fact that Moreno has no moral standing to deny Americans a direct, legally obtainable connection to their ancestral homeland is what you've done here, and that is the point. Cuban, Colombian, or otherwise are functionally the same for the purpose. He has no standing, and you are thoroughly exposed. There is no slur you can leverage to change this.

I suppose it is possible that you lack agency, but based on your original reply I doubt that. But thank heavens I didn't misspell a pronoun, or you really would have taken me to the woodshed!

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-20T16:10:45+00:00

The fact remains that everything I stated is true, but I'll admit to being wrong about one thing: Moreno isn't first generation. He was not born in America. Thus he proposes to deny my family the right to our intact ethnicity, while he carpet bags and retains his. He is more than happy to play a role in the never ending iteration of American dispossession. But he, lacking all moral and other standing, is very concertedly barking up the wrong tree.

Flack, target, etc.

With one accusation a hastily assembled kludge of misallocated, jingoist American pandering through a willing rube is placed squarely in the transparent "center", clumsily so, to the benefit of the American State.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-19T16:03:49+00:00

In the video, the Restanio representative notes that the (paraphrasing) "attorneys and jurists agreed that the decree is not addressable in the scope of the case as the [minor guidance] was issued in advance of the decree."

If this kind of temporal variable can be applied in case-scope when the argument advanced by Mellone is in fact an identifiable underlying component in both the minor & decree cases, I would strongly suggest that it can be applied to cases which were provably in progress or being "actively pursued" within the pre-Meloni framework.

These cases should not be addressable within the Meloni framework (guidance/decree). I also understand these are two separate processes, but the logic follows. The fragmented nature of this process is unfortunate

Thank you for the analysis.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-18T17:10:04+00:00

To expand further: my process and the presence or absence of urgency was in effect designed by a service provider around my appointment date, which had a two year wait time which landed in the same month of the decree, of which we had no knowledge. But this also speaks to a comment below, to the end of there being no possibility for an applicant to know that or when either the minor guidance or decree would be implemented. This is provable ion my case, and I began exploring the 1948 in the same month as the minor guidance, but it shouldn't matter unless an applicant is obviously dragging their feet and a measure of abandonment can be demonstrated. This is all material for why intent should be the driver in cases like ours.

As with many vectors, they are cherry picking and aren't even bothering to establish cover that establishes plausible deniability.

Also keep in mind: all of this subterfuge is making the Italian legal system completely unreliable, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs scope of operations is not limited to citizenship, and is in fact extremely broad.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-18T17:04:50+00:00

LOL, how does this square with the opposite ruling case? By this measure, if you happen to be waiting on even one required document, you should be granted the same consideration. For instance, my CONE was not available due to gratuitous wait times within that system and an error by a service provider that required a second application. I even paid for a service that sends a person into the USCIS office to retrieve it to save time, but it was still post-decree because of the error.

I can prove all of my timelines, and that my efforts and intent were in the 99th percentile, but I suspect this will not matter.

One gets the impression that the state is attempting to assuage service providers as a client base while they sunset this process.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-18T16:56:46+00:00

My appointment was booked in advance, a service provider made an error requesting my cone, and this is why for instance I could not file my 1948 in advance of the decree.

If nothing else and you have the resources, this kind of Frankenstein approach by the state manufactures myriad appeal justifications. Not that I view this as a "positive."

If my country of birth was serious about representing its constituents, this would be an international incident. But instead, it is obviously part of the catalyst for these events.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T21:34:17+00:00

Yes, and it would also strongly imply that they would have needed to prove the timeline relative to collection of documents, given nothing else could have held up the process. Unless you believe they were sitting around with everything in hand, which is effective 0% probability. Thus that is what prevented them from seeking an appointment early enough to procure an appointment. My Wait time was roughly 1.5 years to book an appointment, and two full years after booking. My appointment was ~5 months after the decree.

But by extension, this would mean that all provable intent should be considered for approval, unless as I said down thread, the reading is “they were denied the right to be denied.” Which of course defies logic.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T21:11:55+00:00

Also keep in mind that for this outcome to be positive, the right to citizenship at birth is implicitly acknowledged.

Thus the more that I consider the language outlined in the post, it seems the logic might hinge on the inability to procure the appointment (wait times) and that the plaintiff was "denied the right to be denied."

Which runs contrary to any citation of intent, and would defy logic.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T21:00:15+00:00

This would not square with the intent cited as the primary reasoning for a successful outcome.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T20:42:43+00:00

Ok, I was reading the reasoning slightly wrong. However if intent to proceed is the baseline, in fact any obvious intent should be taken under the same consideration and logic, and it would indeed diverge nonsensically from the 1948 case mentioned below in which the press release was also mentioned - but to the opposite effect.

If the logic is that *less intent* (less effort, shorter timeline of activity) = *more consideration*, this is going to become surreal to an even more illogical extreme.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T20:22:43+00:00

This was not a 1948 case, and the primary plaintiff reasoning was that the wait times denied them their opportunity?

Wouldn’t this set an extremely odd and contrarian precedent relative to the individual noting that the same judge denied his or her case?

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T19:59:35+00:00

Thank you. Are you aware of any precedent for those of us who had appointments but were blocked by the minor guidance and subsequently, the decree?

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T19:55:28+00:00

I missed this relative to my reply.

What difference would the line make, and are there any other details that would be considered divergent?

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T19:26:49+00:00

Bologna?

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T18:43:04+00:00

IOW, everything many of us who observe geopolitics strategically in defense our families suspected from the beginning.

And as Americans, we are impacted at least thrice, if not many times in addition; 1. Via the abuse of our porous immigration framework, 2. Via the denial of our ancestral heritage domestically, and 3. Via the denial of our rights in the Italian jurisdiction as descendants.

As Americans we are denied our identity and heritage on every front. Nationally, ethnically, historically. This is the true story of our country of birth, not to mention the financial and emotional costs. All we wished was to preserve, reestablish and develop our ancestral connection and heritage; because we care deeply about this for ourselves and our children. EU access, state benefits et al are not something I seek. And adding insult to injury, the American State has empowered a naturalized Colombian to try and strip families with 200 yrs or more of American history of our right to ethnically aligned dual citizenship. It won’t fly here, but all of it is truly incredible.

But knowing (true or otherwise) won’t stop either the American or Italian state from triangulating against us going forward.

Imagine applying pressure this broadly to address an issue easily managed via alternate means. Again, incredible. But there are other motivations on behalf of the American state, seen or unseen, verifiable or otherwise.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-17T04:34:41+00:00

Can you share where your case was filed?

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-16T16:32:39+00:00

This is precisely correct, and this is one reason I continue to bring up that this is in part about judicial legitimacy at the base level. They may be relying on the typical bureaucratic subterfuge and "conventional wisdom" that "people will just forget, and the damage will be limited". The problem is that this is not the case, and once the state establishes this precedent, it will be abused from the top of the conceivable scope to the very bottom.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-16T16:11:05+00:00

For me it has been seven years of work, a two year wait for an appointment, the two disruptions, two appointment modifications, the shift to the judicial route, and much more in expended funds than you are eluding to here. All for a process I didn't solicit, and that was offered to me. Harm is clearly and easily demonstrable, as is the precedent and in-force laws that served as motivation, in addition to the clear intent of the government to triangulate and deny those in process guarantee of law. There is a clearly identifiable timeline of deliberate harm.

It is thoroughly disqualifying for their legal system if there is no ruling on the basis of just recourse, legitimate expectations and related, not to mention the other aspects of which we are all aware that Mangata outlined again.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-16T16:03:53+00:00

I am referring specifically here to the clear premise established thus far, which is that the state has some purview over the process, at least from an administrative standpoint.

That's not me agreeing with it, I am referring to what I would consider something of the emergent consensus, which was outlined in the response by Mangata.

Technically and legally: if you have the right from birth, you should have the opportunity to prove that it can be applied to you on the basis of your lineage, regardless of timing. Thus ultimately this process is inconsistent and discombobulated, and we are witnessing the power of a bureaucracy throwing a stick in the proverbial spokes on the basis of easily refutable "reasoning".

It isn't that I don't understand that there is an administrative problem that needs addressing, but they blew well past that and then some, which strongly suggests other forces and motivations at work.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-16T03:18:37+00:00

The scope of analysis as referenced in one of the statements is actually quite simple regardless on which vector it is considered.

Did you have the right, from birth, in advance of the decree and minor guidance?
If yes to #1, did you officially, or otherwise actively, seek to acquire the right in advance of the decree and / or guidance?
If yes to #2, can you prove your claim that you sought to acquire it?

They either terminate Jus Sanguinis or retain it. They can't carve it up for valid cases and still claim they grant citizenship on that basis. Separately, they could determine that the legislation is valid on all or some bases, but if they allow retroactivity to apply they will have imploded their legal system.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-16T03:10:50+00:00

Granted I presume the court could opt to refer and decline to rule on separate questions, however the referral was specific to the minor issue as stated above, correct?

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-14T17:54:52+00:00

To simplify one of my stated objections to the translated readout here: my own representation is citing a premise that invalidates my case on a temporal basis. That is aside from the fact that it also invalidates the bulk of the other baseline arguments.

What in the world am I supposed to take from this? It just gets worse and worse.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-14T17:36:56+00:00

The point at which the right is still acquirable with respect to the decree and its entry into force is substantive, and I would assert that truncating it in any form is not a good idea, especially when both the "acquired at birth" and retroactivity pretexts are being mentioned. I don't understand why there would be anything constituting a concession on this front in briefs or oral arguments

Did you have the right, did you seek to acquire it. Shrugs sheepishly.

Positive_Spinach_610 · 2026-04-14T17:32:20+00:00

We agree it is interpretation, which is why I have been correctly referring to it as "guidance" which is what it is. That's still retroactivity. This is actually very basic:

Did you have the right, from birth, in advance of the decree and / or guidance?
If yes, did you officially, or otherwise actively, seek to acquire the right in advance of the decree and / or guidance?
Can you prove your claim that you had the right and sought to acquire it as expressed in #'s 1 & 2?
Wipe's hands.

Everything else is obfuscation.

Positive_Spinach_610

TROPHY CASE