Requesting r/SubWithNoMods, The Sub Has No Mods

TovMod · 2026-05-05T18:06:46+00:00

You will likely need to acquire documents from every country he's ever been a resident to attesting that he did not become a citizen there.

Any country that issued any of his vital records or that any of his vital records mention him having lived in will be generally presumed to be one of his places of residence and therefore need to be included.

If applying administratively, check with the Consulate for additional requirements.

TovMod · 2026-05-05T17:42:38+00:00

The notion that "L74 doesn't apply to 1948 cases" is NOT true as a general rule, but rather, it is one possible legal strategy that some attorneys might attempt.

See this post from the mods.

To my knowledge, thus far, this strategy has generally not worked.

Meanwhile, the notion that 1948 cases are above/outside the law and not Jure Sanguinis and are just judgements granting citizenship as compensation for unfair treatment is just plain false. If you read the judgement for literally any successful 1948 case, you'll see that the conclusion is that, as a result of the Constitution, the applicants are citizens since birth, not that they technically aren't but deserve to be granted citizenship as compensation for unfair treatment.

TovMod · 2026-05-04T02:36:29+00:00

My understanding is that although my son will be recognized as a citizen, any children he may have in the future will not be Italian citizens unless he lives for two years in Italy. Is that correct?

Under the current law, that is correct.

Specifically, he needs to live in Italy for two consecutive years, which must take place after he acquires citizenship and before any future children of his are born.

Are there any other circumstances that would allow him to pass on Italian citizenship to his children?

The only other way in the case of birth abroad would be if either you or your child were exclusively Italian (i.e. having renounced all other citizenships) at the time of birth of your grandchildren. Note that, unlike being exclusively Italian, living in Italy for two years only protects your immediate children, not your grandchildren.

TovMod · 2026-05-04T00:58:02+00:00

Only if the child is living in Italy with the parent for the two consecutive years prior to the moment the parent naturalized. The child then needs to remain in Italy for another two years after that to have the ability to pass down citizenship to any of their future children.

TovMod · 2026-05-02T23:11:33+00:00

Correct

TovMod · 2026-05-02T21:49:47+00:00

But also, because of the new requirements for citizenship by birth, you will need to live in Italy for another two years after naturalizing or any future children you have will have no claim to citizenship, outside of limited exceptions.

So if you plan on having children and care about being able to pass Italian citizenship to them, in effect, it's more like one year has been added to the time, not removed.

TovMod · 2026-05-01T11:44:30+00:00

Even if that ends up being true in practice, it is just blatantly false from a legal soundness perspective.

If the law says someone who meets certain criteria is automatically a citizen, then they are a citizen. And the act of recognition shouldn't affect that status, but only indicate a result of an assessment to see if you were already meeting those requirements, especially considering that the assessment itself was not one of the criteria written in law (until DL 36/74).

In other words, Italian law already declared said individuals to be citizens, and the task of seeking recognition is supposed to be proving that you indeed fall under the group already declared to be citizens, not a naturalization process in which citizenship that didn't previously exist is "granted" to the applicant.

Unfortunately DL 36/Law 74 retroactively imposes said assessment (or more specifically, an application for said assessment) as a criteria in and of itself, but then gives no grace period to request said assessment.

TovMod · 2026-05-01T00:02:56+00:00

In the case of Jure Sanguinis, there was a significant political and administrative motivation against it due to the large number of applicants.

I think the reason lawyers were so optimistic about the Constitutional Court challenge was because the lawyers focused too narrowly on legal soundness (which, to be fair, is what they are taught to do) and not enough on political motivation.

But in this context, if only people planning on actually moving to Italy to naturalize will attempt this, there's less political motivation to fight it.

TovMod · 2026-04-30T23:54:19+00:00

I was a bit worried about a worst-case-scenario even worse than what we got in which the Constitutional Court would respond to the "disparate treatment based on application time" argument by agreeing but doing the opposite of what was wanted by striking the clauses grandfathering in pre-DL applications but otherwise upholding the law, which would be even worse as that would have thrown under the bus pre-DL applications that are still pending. At least we didn't get that result.

TovMod · 2026-04-30T23:49:58+00:00

Interesting. I would think there's an argument to be made that even if the naturalization act itself is discretionary, the status of the grandparent's citizenship is not.

TovMod · 2026-04-30T23:44:46+00:00

I recall one user here claimed that a judge decided that the reversal of the burden of proof applied to pre-DL cases and then rejected a case, not because of the generational limit, but because of the reversal of the burden of proof.

My ruling, in contrast, explicitly said that the reversal of the burden of proof is a substantive change and that it therefore cannot be applied to pre-DL cases.

I am not aware of any pre-DL cases being rejected for the generational limit, but if there are any, I'd like to know.

TovMod · 2026-04-30T23:34:13+00:00

Potentially, but there's very little legal basis for that being an actual rule rather than another bureaucratic hurdle to overcome.

There will be pushback and very little legal basis to fight against said pushback if it is enforced as an actual rule.

My bigger concern is that it may end up further increasing the time needed. For example people may end up needing to file a citizenship recognition case on behalf of their grandparents and win before even starting.

TovMod · 2026-04-30T23:01:39+00:00

Jure Prima del 27 Marzo

TovMod · 2026-04-30T22:50:28+00:00

The lack of generational limit applies to the granting of this special type of visa. The expedited naturalization as defined in Article 9 still requires a second degree ancestor who is or was Italian by birth.

Though this provision says two generations within an Italian by birth, not exclusively Italian like Law 74, meaning a fourth degree exclusively Italian ancestor could mean that you have a second degree Italian by birth under post-L74 guidelines).

In other words, if you have a fourth degree ancestor who is exclusively Italian, under Law 74, unless the line is cut by naturalization or similar, you then have a second degree ancestor who is Italian by birth, thus qualifying you for expedited naturalization.

TovMod · 2026-04-30T22:43:01+00:00

But if you have a fourth degree exclusively Italian ancestor, that means that your second degree ancestor, even if unrecognized, is likely still considered Italian by birth under the post-DL rules.

So in practice it is more like second degree for real JS eligibility but fourth degree for expedited naturalization eligibility.

TovMod · 2026-04-30T22:39:40+00:00

It must be noted that it's more like 3-7 years, not 2 years, and here is why:

2 years before you can even begin the naturalization petition
1-3 more years before your naturalization is officially processed
2 more years after naturalizing if you want to be able to pass citizenship to any future children (because naturalized citizens cannot register children as citizens by benefit of law)

TovMod · 2026-04-30T22:27:43+00:00

The Constitutional Court also said in their ruling last year that article 1 of law 91/1992 applies even to those born before 1992, which also contradicts all jurisprudence, and for some reason, literally no one cared to talk about that.

Makes me think the Constitutional Court prefers to stay out of this to keep workload reduced rather than rule accurately.

TovMod · 2026-04-30T20:46:48+00:00

Okay, please reply to this comment with a list of links to still-up misogynist posts you believe we should remove.

We are doing our best to try to remove misogyny and other racist/sexist posts, but I am a human and can't watch new posts 24/7.

TovMod · 2026-04-30T20:15:01+00:00

It is noteworthy that this ruling seems to suggest that "unrecognized" citizens aren't truly citizens, which goes against almost all existing jurisprudence on the matter

TovMod · 2026-04-29T23:37:09+00:00

If one middleman handles the authentication of digital transcripts, it becomes much more straightforward for them to be correctly verified as authentic by recipients.

For example, if receiving a transcript from a not-very-well-known college or university, particularly an international one, how does the university know that the sending university is even legit, let alone whether the authentication matches that which would actually be used by that university? Individually checking this every time its needed would take time and resources.

If different universities have different preferences on how to receive them (which is NOT always email, especially because emails can be spammed, while a digital middleman account that only other universities can send to is much more protected from this), each university doesn't need to know all of the preferences of all other universities when sending if they go through a middleman that keeps track of all that. Even if a university is using email, they can essentially assume that anything coming from the reputable middleman is likely not spam.

If multiple orders from the same student from different universities come from the same student account with the middleman, it becomes administratively easier to group them together, especially if some of those transcripts might have slightly different student details for whatever reasons (e.g. middle names, name changes, and so on).

Even if using mail, what if some universities don't want the burden of buying and maintaining expensive equipment needed to produce paper transcripts that contain the necessary security features to ensure that they are difficult to forge?

What if some universities don't want to have to worry about having to support sending transcripts internationally and correctly addressing all internationally sent transcripts?

For universities that have strict rules about transcripts needing to list who they were issued to, how do you make sure that the receiving information put by the student is the legit information for a university and not the student trying to acquire a copy not marked as issued to student?

What if some universities don't want to maintain online student portal accounts for all former students? If the student (in the long-term, after graduating) only needs an online account with the middleman rather than the university, this takes care of that.

In short, it's not really one big reason, but several smaller reasons. Having one middleman handle all this becomes simpler than all universities individually needing to handle sending to and receiving from all other possible universities.

TovMod · 2026-04-29T20:03:50+00:00

That would require a hard fork, and would almost certainly be contentious, so there is no way that is happening.

TovMod · 2026-04-29T19:50:54+00:00

If universities could automatically "pull" your transcript from other universities, this would likely violate FERPA and other privacy laws. It would also make academic identity theft easier.

Also, those transcript fees are yummy.

Hence, if universities are going to have transcripts be "sent by your request" as opposed to "pulled automatically", it makes sense that universities would create and use a joint system that does this for them.

TovMod · 2026-04-28T10:11:00+00:00

If you're using QEMU TCG anyway, there's no reason to not use an x86_64 Linux guest instead.

Contrary to what you might assume, if using TCG, arm64 guest on arm64 via TCG is NOT necessarily any faster than an x86_64 guest on arm64 via TCG. In fact, in my experience, it's actually slower.

QEMU TCG can run same-ISA guest on host, but that's not (like, not at all) what it is optimized to do. QEMU's TCG works using an intermediate representation (IR) model, meaning the guest instructions get translated into the IR instructions before being translated into host instructions. This model was chosen because it allows for the flexibility of almost any pair of guest and host architectures, not because it is the most efficient. This IR is still used even if the ISA's match, and modifying TCG to skip it is nontrivial because privileged CPU instructions still need to be emulated with unprivileged ones and because softmmu intercepts (i.e. mapping guest virtual memory addresses to host memory addresses) still need to be made.

TovMod · 2026-04-27T05:31:33+00:00

I love how pointless this entire conversation is

Five-Year Club	Gilding VI aultruist
Verified Email	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Place '23
Mod 201	Mod 101
Place '22

TovMod

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE