Ideas and practices of nationality and citizenship in the Republic of
Argentina (and before that, in the
Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata and the
Inca Empire) have changed with distinct periods of its history, including but not limited to periods of indigenous, colonial, republican, and military rule. These periods, in which political rights were often denied to both citizens and non-citizens, encouraged the development of resistance movements. This history of resistance and fighting for political rights is deeply imbedded in the modern Argentine notion of citizenship.
Inca The
Inca Empire was a conglomeration of conquered ethnic groups,
etnías, ruled by ethnic Inca from the Cuzco-Lake Titicaca Basin in what is now central Peru. They called their empire
Tiwantinsuyu, meaning "four corners." Modern northern and western Argentina was a part of Kollasuyu. The Inca elite imposed their own institutions on conquered territories, while at the same time incorporating local customs on a case-by-case basis. Because the Argentine portion of Kollasuyu was on the edge of the empire the communities there had even more local autonomy than elsewhere in the empire, but were still subject to Inca protection and duties through the
mita system of reciprocity. At the same time, Inca statebuilding was based on the threat of violence. Other expressions of Inca presence were the spoken language of
Quechua, the official spoken language of all governance (the Inca had no written language), and became a symbol of Inca presence through contact with officials and the renaming of local landmarks. Imperial, administrative titles were given to local officials and ethnic/
ayllu leaders, thus incorporating them into the empire's broader, administrative structure. The Inca conducted detailed censuses using the
quipu. Inclusion on the census made one, officially, an Inca subject, and they resettled conquered peoples for a variety of administrative reasons. Often, the moving of these
mitmaqkuna settlers was purely an expression of power over newly conquered subjects.
Colonisation and the viceroyalty After being colonised by the Spanish, Argentina was made part of the
Viceroyalty of Peru. In 1776 it became part of the new, and ultimately short-lived,
Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. Throughout Spanish America, citizenship was both a legal and a social status that was implicit rather than formal, and largely informed by one's racial and class background. As in the Inca Empire, the colonising power's concepts were combined with the unique dictates of the situation in the colony itself. The
Casta system of racial classification was the foundation of social order, and thus rights, throughout Spanish America.
Peninsulares,
Criollo (people)s,
Indios, and the growing group of mixed-race inhabitants (usually
mestizos) all had different citizenship rights.
Peninsulares had the full rights and privileges of
naturaleza, and were the most esteemed in society and therefore were the ideal
vecinos. Criollos were the most common in Buenos Aires, and were
naturales and
vecinos too, though with an implicitly lower status.
Indios and
mestizos were, initially, excluded from citizenship status entirely. The presence of non-Spanish Europeans in the Viceroyalties of Peru and Rio de La Plata was, officially, illegal. Though “insiders” and “outsiders” were not explicitly defined in the viceroyalties, Spanish law did differentiate between the two by granting privileges only to those considered members of the community. Because the concept of ‘community’ itself was poorly, if at all defined, non-members were deemed to be so on a case-by-case basis, based on community opinion and, where available, on precedent. In order to become a member of the community, an outsider usually needed to prove that he was born in the territory, and culturally Spanish (Spanish speaking and writing, Catholic, etc.). In this way Spanish America tended towards jus soli (right by birthplace). Foreigners could apply to the
audiencia for a license to remain in the viceroyalty, or they could apply to the Crown (through the
Council of the Indies for naturalization. The former did not grant the foreigner any rights, while the latter
carta de naturaleza granted most rights afforded to other members (with some exceptions, including the right to own and operate a business). Obtaining the
carta de naturaleza was a lengthier process requiring more proof of cultural Spanishness, and usually a monetary payment to a Crown office or official. It was considered a personal grant, and therefore a personal relationship with a Crown official was invaluable. Colonial
Buenos Aires was a relatively small frontier settlement threatened by the indigenous and Portuguese presence in the area, which gave the city's residents an especially acute sense of their Spanishness. To this end, city officials only allowed "natives of the kingdoms of Spain" (
naturales) to become citizens. Only foreigners who could provide a useful service to the city and who were considered culturally Spanish were granted the status. These individuals were almost always of non-Spanish European ancestry, and where rarely (if ever) indigenous or African. In the 1610s, an oath for citizenship candidates was created that required them to possess a house and arms; however, the number of applicants dropped in subsequent years and the oath fell out of use. By the eighteenth century, Indians were receiving citizenship statuses of their own. Initially classified as members of indigenous communities by birth, this status helped determine their labour (
repartimiento) and taxation (
tributo) duties to the Crown. Still, the terms
vecino and
naturaleza were never officially applied. The implicit valuing of
peninsulares over
criollos in Spanish America was a key point of contention in the debates over independence, particularly in the highly-literate city of Buenos Aires. Though they legally belonged to the same kingdom as
naturalezas, only
criollos had been born in the Americas (as
vecinos), and thus felt that they had a unique claim to the land, its administration, and the rights that would follow.
Independence and the new republic During the
Argentine War of Independence, delegates met in 1813 to draft a constitution based upon the model of the Constitution of Cadiz for the
United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, granting citizenship to free men born and living in the provinces. It did not create a central authority, having granted the various provinces autonomy, and had no real authority outside of
Buenos Aires Province. The Independence movement in Argentina was primarily
criollo movement, and thus the citizenship laws made in its aftermath primarily affected the
criollo population. ( A notable exception: The
Asamblea del Año XIII, or Assembly of 1813, precursed the official
Argentine Declaration of Independence in July 1816, but is the republic's first attempt at a constitution. Though the delegates could not agree on many major points,
Freedom of Wombs was declared, giving freedom and citizenship to slaves' children born within the territory. It also states that the Argentine Indians were ruled by the Pampas in the 1800s.) Led by
Domingo Faustino Sarmiento,
Juan Bautista Alberdi, and
Esteban Echeverria in response to the
Rosas administration, the Generation of 1830 proposed a new, modern Argentina built on economic partnerships with Europe and European immigrants. Sarmiento's “civilization or barbarism” and Alberdi's “civil liberty for all, political liberty for a few” and "to rule is to populate" characterize the society they envisioned – one of order and progress, in which those qualified to run the state were men of European intellectual tradition. This more elitist approach to governance effectively proposed two tiers of citizenship. A failed
Constitution of 1819 was rejected by the provinces. Numerous attempts by various Constituent Assemblies were unable to resolve whether the Provinces would follow a monarchical or republican form of government, which proved to be the downfall of the
1826 Constitution, as well. The first successful attempt to adopt an
Argentine Constitution occurred in 1853. It established in Article 15 that slavery was abolished, in Article 16 that all inhabitants were equal under the law, and in Article 20 that foreigners living in the country should have the same civil rights as citizens and were eligible for naturalization after residing in Argentina for two years. No matter how close economic and cultural ties were (or were desired to be) with Europe, political discourse in the mid-nineteenth century up to
Peronism after the Second World War made Europeans the counterpoint “other” to Argentine collective identity. Argentina was developing on the same economically liberal model as European powers (particularly Spain, Britain, and France), but improving on it. Argentine involvement in Mercosur integration began in the late 20th century. Initial cooperation was focused on the economy through the establishment of Mercosur as a regional trade bloc. Argentina became a founding member of Mercosur in 1991, alongside
Brazil,
Paraguay, and
Uruguay. This agreement aimed to promote economic integration and cooperation among its member states.
Nationality law and civil status The constitution established that nationality could be gained or lost, as was described in civil law. As early as 1867, the
Supreme Court confirmed that a married woman shared her husband's nationality. In a case involving Elena Eyras, an Argentine, and her husband Manuel Pedro de la Peña, a Paraguayan, the husband argued their separate nationalities warranted a decision in federal court. The court refused to hear their marital dispute, denying federal jurisdiction on the grounds that married women were required to have a unified identity and share the same domicile as their husbands. Law 346 of 8 October 1869, the first
Argentine nationality law, established in Article 1 that birth in Argentina was the basis for nationality of a child regardless of its parents' nationality, unless the parents were foreign ministers or diplomats residing in the country. The law also established that a child born abroad to a national of the country of either sex could derive nationality from its parent by following procedures for the declaration of Argentine nationality. It contained no specific provisions relating to the loss of citizenship, but the Supreme Court ruled in eleven separate cases between 1867 and 1902 that an Argentine woman who married a foreigner lost her nationality. Likewise, a foreign woman married to an Argentine man gained his nationality. The Argentine Civil Code, adopted in 1869, followed
Catholic canon law, establishing a husband's authority over his family and incapacitating married women. A ruling in 1902 from the Supreme Court found that the act of marriage was not responsible for either acquisition or loss of nationality for a woman, but that it could expatriate her for jurisdictional purposes in legal matters, reinforcing that a wife was required to follow her husband's authority. From 1914, a married woman, foreign or Argentine, did not derive nationality from her husband's. In that year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs instructed consuls abroad to register Argentine women living abroad and married to foreigners as Argentine nationals and to enter foreign wives of Argentine men into the consulate registries without stating they had Argentine nationality. From 1918, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs instructed that foreign wives could receive Argentine passports, though they were not technically nationals, but had the same civil status as the husband. In 1926, Argentina revised its Civil Code through Law 11.357 removing the marital authority provision for husbands and expanding women's civil rights. According to the Federal Chamber in Buenos Aires, until the code revision a married woman had technically lost her nationality, but after the change her nationality was independent of her husband's. In 1933, the Argentine delegation to the Pan-American Union's Montevideo conference signed the Inter-American Convention on the Nationality of Women, which became effective in 1934, without legal reservations. In 1947, the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued another circular reiterating that marriage neither bestowed nor relinquished nationalization for a spouse, but that foreign wives could be issued Argentine passports.
Guerra Sucia and Military Rule The military juntas and the
Guerra Sucia which followed Peron were exceptionally repressive, and the systematic targeting of ordinary citizens created a climate of fear and silence that was the opposite of the mass political participation of the Peron era. Still, they too built their governments around concepts of Argentine identity. The juntas attacked Peronism as a threat to the true capitalist Argentine values, conceiving a more, individualist, and exclusive model of citizenship in which only the qualified had the right to rule, and all others must trust their decisions. The collective Argentine identity was replaced with a more individualist, favour-based model, where the citizen's role was in service of the state rather than vice versa Though freedom of expression was nonexistent under the juntas and dissent was a punishable offence, a strong social movement grew out of the military rule. Though each group had its own concerns, most used the rhetoric of citizenship to fight for a return of their political rights. These human rights groups were eventually joined by women's groups and trade unions in early 1982, beginning the return to democracy and civilian rule.
Contemporary times In 2009, it was ratified that Argentine nationality is inalienable is consolidated through judicial decisions and the interpretation of the Constitution and international treaties. In 2009, the Electoral Chamber rejected the request of two Argentine citizens who wanted to renounce their nationality to obtain Lithuanian nationality, reaffirming its inalienability as a constitutional and human rights principle. This ruling was based on the fact that nationality is an inalienable right, and that renouncing it would be unconstitutional, since the Argentine Constitution does not contemplate such a possibility for those born in the country. To make the process less challenging for long-term residents to obtain Argentine citizenship, the country's naturalization process was simplified and changed in 2010. Maximiliano Abad (UCR) introduced a bill in the National Congress in 2023 that would have made obtaining nationality with more challenges. Requirements such as taking an oath of allegiance, speaking Spanish, and having more specific grounds for denying naturalization in cases of criminal history were among the goals of the project. It also implied that nationality could be revoked in cases of fraud or false documentation, in addition to measures to prevent statelessness. Additional requirements concerning the residency requirement for naturalization were established in 2025 by the Executive Power's Decree of Necessity and Urgency (DNU) No. 366/2025. It stipulated that applicants could not have left Argentina during the two years of continuous residency, which had to be uninterrupted. This decree sought to restrict cases of people seeking nationality without establishing a stable and permanent presence in Argentina and to strengthen the definition of "residency" in the current legislation. Significant immigration law reforms have been implemented, which may affect residency status. For example, permanent residents can now lose their status after 12 months of absence, a reduction from 24 months. Then, on October 6 2025, the requirements were stregment. The citizenship procedure were not by the
Poder Judicial de la Nación anymore, but with a digital platform named as RaDEX system, by the DNM (Dirección Nacional de Migraciones). On the new requirements it is stipulated that the newer applicants must submit, additionally, "Documentation that proves their occupation or means of subsistence". == See also ==