TAJANI AND ITALIANS ABROAD: BETWEEN NATIONAL PRIDE AND THE SUSPICION OF INAUTHENTICITY -A Selective and Stratified Vision of Italian Identity
The most significant aspect of Tajani’s remarks is not the contradiction itself, but the stratification of Italian identity that emerges from them. Italian citizenship, historically based on the principle of jus sanguinis, has long recognized a legal bond independent of language proficiency, economic status, or degree of cultural integration. Yet the minister’s words appear to establish a hierarchy of legitimacy among citizens who are formally equal before the law.
During the Conference of Italian Consuls Worldwide, held in Rome on 12–13 June 2026, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani delivered a speech on Italian emigration that reveals a profound political and institutional contradiction.
On the one hand, he praised the historical role of millions of Italians who left their homeland to build a future abroad. Tajani described them as people who “left everything behind except their love for their homeland, its values and traditions,” and recalled that they were men and women who “left Italy to seek their fortune around the world.”
Yet only minutes later, the minister questioned a segment of Italians living abroad, noting that many of them “go to the consulate and do not speak Italian.” He also criticized those who seek Italian citizenship primarily for the advantages associated with an EU passport, reducing their interest in Italian nationality to international mobility or the possibility of relocating to destinations such as Miami.
The contradiction is evident. If Italian emigration deserves recognition precisely because millions of people left the country generations ago, it is difficult to ignore that the partial loss of language and cultural distance are natural consequences of that very migration process.
However, the most significant aspect of Tajani’s remarks is not the contradiction itself, but the stratification of Italian identity that emerges from them. Italian citizenship, historically based on the principle of jus sanguinis, has long recognized a legal bond independent of language proficiency, economic status, or degree of cultural integration. Yet the minister’s words appear to establish a hierarchy of legitimacy among citizens who are formally equal before the law.
This hierarchy became even more apparent in his tribute to Vincenzo Andronaco, a Sicilian entrepreneur who emigrated to Hamburg at the age of eighteen and whom Tajani described as an “example of good Italians, valuable Italians, an expression of Italian genius.”
The choice of words is revealing. Opposed to the Italian citizen who arrives at a consulate without speaking the language stands the successful Italian abroad: the entrepreneur, economically integrated, capable of generating wealth and promoting Italian interests. One is presented as a symbol of the nation; the other as a citizen whose authenticity appears permanently subject to scrutiny.
As a result, two implicit categories of Italians abroad emerge. On one side are the “valuable” Italians: entrepreneurs, successful professionals, and individuals whose contribution is measured by their economic utility. On the other are descendants of Italian emigrants whose connection to Italy is evaluated through cultural and linguistic criteria rather than through the legal status of citizenship itself.
From a constitutional perspective, this distinction raises a fundamental question. If all Italian citizens are equal before the law, can the state suggest that some are more representative of the nation than others? Can there be a first-class citizenship associated with success and economic contribution, and a second-class citizenship associated with individuals who exercise exactly the same legal rights but do not conform to an idealized model of Italianness?
Tajani’s remarks appear to point precisely in that direction. More than a reflection on citizenship, they reveal a selective and stratified vision of Italian identity, in which symbolic recognition depends not on the legal bond with the Republic, but on the degree of economic, cultural, or linguistic value that each citizen is perceived to embody.
Pablo Munini