Talk:Argentine nationality law

Incorrect information?

With all my respect, the whole info is wrong. 1. Argentina has a dual system accepting ius solis and ius sanguinis. Children of Argentinians who were born in other countries are Argentinians and they only have to go to the consul who note this at the files and provide him of her with Argentinians ID.

2. Regarding the lack of accuracy, I corrected the requirements.

3. There should be more chapter like a. Videla's citizenship law b. Procedure 3. Difficulties during the procedure related to the abolished law. etc, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian rubilar (talk

4. I erased the link to the yahoo article because its all wrong.

a person born outside Argentina of an Argentine parent is considered Argentine, provided that that person either be registered with an Argentine.

This needs clarification. I am not stupid and I am fluent in English and nowadays even consider English my first language, but I don't understand this. What does this mean? 97.103.80.222 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I rewrited the section.pmt7ar ^(t|c) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion, not fact

" It contained no provisions relating to the loss of citizenship,[12] but the Supreme Court ruled in eleven separate cases between 1867 and 1902 that an Argentine woman who married a foreigner lost her nationality.[14] Likewise, a foreign woman married to an Argentine man, gained his nationality."

This is basically the opinion of a single author. In reality, there was never marriage derivated citizenship in Argentina. And this is a civil law jurisdiction, which means that the supreme court can clarify or interpretate law, but not generate law itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.161.118.162 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am unclear on what you are saying. The author, who is an academic and lawyer and an expert on immigration law, race and gender, wrote that the interpretation of the Supreme Court was that women did lose their nationality. No where does it state that they created a law. The cases in question, she cites as: "In addition to doña Elena's case, see Balcarce de Baumgart, CSJN 10 Fallos 177, (1871); Moreno de Gomez, CSJN 30 Fallos 406, (1887); Cánepa, CSJN 34 Fallos 297, (1888); Caballero, CSJN 40 Fallos 225, (1891); Gonzalez Videla, CSJN 42 Fallos 128, (1891); Guastavino, CSJN 49 Fallos 382, (1892); Gruming, CSJN 62 Fallos 185, (1895); V. de Terrile, CSJN 69 Fallos 395, (1897); and Pnuemáticos, CSJN 95 Fallos 122 (1902)". Thus clearly, the rulings exist, and as an expert, we rely on her interpretation of them rather than our own. Do you have a source that contradicts her interpretation of the cases? Happy to see it if you do. SusunW (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"have been living in Argentina for the past 2 years"-what is the accurate meaning of this?

Some sources say that one can apply for Argentine citizenship after having stayed continuously for 2 years, while others say that the law actually implies that 2 years after getting permanent residence is required to apply and that the permanent residence can be obtained after at least 3 years of entering the country. Some say this,some say that. How is this in actual practice of naturalization in Argentina? Based on the requirements of other countries, the latter looks correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob2013 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)