Interesting JS case- Do we have a shot?

[Whitehammer]

I have a somewhat atypical case and I'm not sure whether I qualify for dual citizenship via JS.

My GGG Grandfather was one of the few Italians to come to US before the immigration boom. He emigrated from Sicily in 1857 to live with his Uncle and cousin, who he ended up marrying. He joined the Confederate Army in 1862, though in what capacity I don't know. He didn't become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 1874 however, which was 2 years after the birth of my GG Grandpa.

I have a few questions, and I'd love to get any insight or clarification.

1. I was initially led to believe that I was out of luck because my Grandfather emigrated before the unification, and was therefore not granted Italian citizenship. But I've also read that those who emigrated from the states that later composed the Kingdom of Italy were granted Italian citizenship regardless of whether they were living abroad as long as they were alive on or after March 17th, 1861. We have record and know for a fact that he did not naturalize until 1874. Is this correct, and will it make a difference in how the consulate determines our eligibility?

2. Like I said, my GG Grandpa was born in 1872, two years before his father naturalized. Did him being a minor at the time affect his ability to gain dual citizenship?

3. Finally, when you're going back this far it's obviously a little more difficult to obtain every necessary document. We already have a decent amount of documentation, but I'm particularly worried about my GGG Grandfather's and GG Grandfathers' birth and marriage records. As I understand it the State of Mississippi did not keep formal birth records before 1912. While I don't expect anyone on here to have intricate knowledge of individual states' record keeping, does anyone who's had to jump through similar hoops have any suggestions on getting old records? Also, is there any way to substitute/supplement some documentation with census records? Do consulates make exceptions, or is the criteria strict and non-negotiable?

[ItalianTranslator]

As I understand it, the fact that your GGGF naturalized in 1874 (i.e. pre-1912) it means that also your GGF naturalized with him because he was a minor at the time (he was 2 years old). This would cut your GGGF line.

However, you could have a viable line through your GGM. What do you know about her naturalization status?

[mler]

It’s unlikely the gggm naturalized since, before the 1922 Cable Act, women automatically acquired the citizenship of their husbands. However, this means a 1948 case, so it may be wise to consult an attorney who is willing to initiate an “automatic citizenship” case. He can let you know if alternative documentation is acceptable.

[Whitehammer]

It’s unlikely the gggm naturalized since, before the 1922 Cable Act, women automatically acquired the citizenship of their husbands. However, this means a 1948 case, so it may be wise to consult an attorney who is willing to initiate an “automatic citizenship” case. He can let you know if alternative documentation is acceptable.

I'm don't know for sure, but it's possible my GGGM was born in America to her Italian father (don't know if he naturalized) and an American woman. How would this affect her citizenship? Does the potential for a 1948 case still hold if she wasn't Italian born but she married an Italian born man?

[mler]

Since she married an Italian man, she acquired Italian citizenship at that time. (Or she may have even had Italian citizenship earlier through her father.) In any case, she lost Italian citizenship automatically when her husband naturalized.

Since she did not herself renounce or naturalize (she couldn’t naturalize at that time) and obtained US citizenship automatically, you can pursue a 1948 case.

This is indeed a more complicated issue because it involves pre-1912 law and a knowledge of the naturalization laws of the US pre-Cable Act. From what I’ve read, Luigi Paiano is reluctant to take on such cases. He gets so much work from standard cases that he doesn’t need the business. Others have been more willing.

I would suggest you obtain all relevant details regarding dates of births, locations, and naturalizations so that you can clearly explain the line and then contact several attorneys for their input.

[ItalianTranslator]

It’s unlikely the gggm naturalized since, before the 1922 Cable Act, women automatically acquired the citizenship of their husbands. However, this means a 1948 case, so it may be wise to consult an attorney who is willing to initiate an “automatic citizenship” case. He can let you know if alternative documentation is acceptable.

There are several scenarios: woman married with Italian citizenship only, with two citizenship, with only foreign citizenship, and then married to a foreigner or to an Italian who naturalized.

The Circolare K covers these cases in detail, but one need to know exactly what they are dealing with before attempting to read it.

My gut feeling agrees with you on the lawyer bit. Even if he is eligible, it is not a straightforward application and it will require professional assistance by a lawyer.

[mler]

That’s true, but in any of the three scenarios, her Italian citizenship was the only citizenship she held on the date she married since her husband was an Italian citizen at the time. When he naturalized, she lost that citizenship automatically.

[Whitehammer]

Since she married an Italian man, she acquired Italian citizenship at that time. (Or she may have even had Italian citizenship earlier through her father.) In any case, she lost Italian citizenship automatically when her husband naturalized.

Since she did not herself renounce or naturalize (she couldn’t naturalize at that time) and obtained US citizenship automatically, you can pursue a 1948 case.

This is indeed a more complicated issue because it involves pre-1912 law and a knowledge of the naturalization laws of the US pre-Cable Act. From what I’ve read, Luigi Paiano is reluctant to take on such cases. He gets so much work from standard cases that he doesn’t need the business. Others have been more willing.

I would suggest you obtain all relevant details regarding dates of births, locations, and naturalizations so that you can clearly explain the line and then contact several attorneys for their input.

Wow, I guess we're looking at a case where we might qualify just by the skin of the teeth. I'm wondering if it's even worth pursuing, because it's getting a little convoluted at this point. Assuming we do get all the proper docs and info does this seem like a case a capable attorney could argue, or would I be investing money into something that's a long shot?

[mler]

That's why you should take the time to contact several of the 1948 attorneys with specifics of your case. They will let you know if they have had success with similar cases and, if so, what documents would be required. If I recall correctly, there have been several successful cases of this nature.

Once you get that information and the associated costs, you can decide whether it is worth pursuing.

And, no, you don’t qualify by the “skin of your teeth.” You would be tracing your line to your gggm who was an Italian possibly at birth, but definitely by marriage. She lost her citizenship through the action of her husband, which the courts have generally overturned.

I believe Luigi Paiano only handles straight 1948 cases. This is a pre-1912/1948 case. Contact several of the others (I believe di Ruggiero may have dealt with this.)

Almost identical case here:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/italian ... 10677.html

[Whitehammer]

That's why you should take the time to contact several of the 1948 attorneys with specifics of your case. They will let you know if they have had success with similar cases and, if so, what documents would be required. If I recall correctly, there have been several successful cases of this nature.

Once you get that information and the associated costs, you can decide whether it is worth pursuing.

And, no, you don’t qualify by the “skin of your teeth.” You would be tracing your line to your gggm who was an Italian possibly at birth, but definitely by marriage. She lost her citizenship through the action of her husband, which the courts have generally overturned.

I believe Luigi Paiano only handles straight 1948 cases. This is a pre-1912/1948 case. Contact several of the others (I believe di Ruggiero may have dealt with this.)

Almost identical case here:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/italian ... 10677.html

Thank you so much for the useful advice. I’ve recently contacted di Ruggiero and a couple other attorneys and I’m awaiting their responses. I did my own digging for info about Pre-Cable Act law and found something that I’m a little worried about. I saw conflicting information about the citizenship statuses of women prior to the 1907 Expatriation Act. Some of the things I saw stated that prior to the act American women who married immigrants and continued to reside in the US did not lose American citizenship. I don’t know what that means in the context of Italian law though.

[mler]

From what I’ve read, before the 1907 Expatriation Act, a US-born woman did not lose US citizenship when she married a foreigner. That was US law. Italian law at the time said the wife acquired the citizenship of the husband (so, in a sense, both countries considered her to be a citizen). She then lost that citizenship when he naturalized. So what does this mean?

If an Italian citizen man married a US citizen woman in 1970 and naturalized in 1972, his wife, who automatically obtained Italian citizenship because of a pre-1983 marriage, continued to be an Italian citizen.

A century earlier a woman lost the Italian citizenship she acquired through her marriage when her husband naturalized (with no action on her part). So following Italian law, the woman a century earlier was a victim of discrimination because she was stripped of Italian citizenship only because of her sex.

Whether the courts would remedy this type of sexual discrimination is uncertain, but you’ve taken the first step by contacting people with knowledge of the law and the direction the courts are moving.

Best of luck.