La nacionalidad regalada

The "Ley de Nietos" has sparked a significant public debate that has confounded Spanish citizens. The central question is why someone who has never lived in Spain, has no plans to, and knows little about it, should have the right to vote on matters such as reinstating military service or education. This idea seems unfair to Spanish citizens who live, work, and pay taxes in their own country.

Beyond the political embarrassment caused by the potential for electoral fraud, there are other reasons why many foreigners have chosen to acquire Spanish nationality for free through the "Nietos" law. For most of the foreigners who signed up for the "Nietos" law, it was not for the purpose of voting for politicians like Sánchez or Feijóo, but rather to acquire Spanish nationality and all the associated privileges at no cost.

For the vast majority of Spanish citizens, who will have to pay for it, this is an unjust injustice. It doesn't have to be this way. According to the Spanish Constitution, all Spanish citizens have the right to vote, but the Constitution also allows lawmakers to establish requirements, as long as they are based on objective and proportional criteria.

Such requirements already exist in other European countries like Denmark, where a Danish citizen loses their right to vote after being absent from the country for over two years, and many other countries that require certain conditions for both nationality and voting rights. The debate is not about whether the descendants of exiles have the right to Spanish nationality, as the Supreme Court has not questioned this.

The debate is about how many applicants could potentially obtain Spanish nationality by relying on an instruction issued by Sofía Puente, sister of the Transport Minister, Oscar Puente, which modifies the requirements set forth in the "Ley de Memoria Democrática." This instruction even goes against the will of the Legislative Assembly, as the majority of Congress, including Socialists, voted against an amendment presented by Citizens to extend citizenship to all children and grandchildren of exiles, regardless of the reasons for their exile.

What the Citizens party was prevented from doing in Congress, a General Director has now done on her own initiative, against what was decreed by the Parliament. The discussion is not about whether they are first or second generation Spanish citizens, as the Government tries to portray, but about whether they are Spanish or foreigners, strictly following the wording of the law.

This is why those who claim that the Supreme Court is denying the vote to descendants of exiles are simply lying. It is estimated that during the Civil War, around half a million people left Spain due to the conflict. It is true that in the following years and until 1955, many more Spaniards left the country in search of opportunities abroad, although they were most likely not political or religious exiles, but people seeking opportunities away from post-war Spain's poverty.

Moreover, Spaniards who left during those years had no difficulty preserving their nationality, and many of those who went to Latin American countries like Chile, Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Costa Rica, or Dominican Republic were able to quickly recover their nationality because the dictator had signed treaties of dual nationality with them, facilitating the process.

Therefore, it cannot be assumed that persecution occurred, forcing the need to prove the reasons. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would be nationalizing foreigners who do not meet the requirements. This is precisely what the Supreme Court is trying to prevent with its precautionary measures. The "Sofía Puente" instruction has turned the "Nietos" law into a chaotic mess, following the principle that free services attract an infinite demand.

With 400,000 expected nationalizations, the 2.5 million figure could easily be surpassed. This has led to perplexing situations, such as over 160 municipalities in Spain having more people with the right to vote abroad than within their own town. Those who do not know the origins of their ancestors are being directed to Madrid. The number of applicants makes it appear as though every grandparent who fled had a large family of grandchildren.

This is the kind of situation that makes emigrating to the Caribbean seem appealing again. It has nothing to do with the procedures followed in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, which alleges that the Court is denying the vote to descendants of exiles; they are simply lying. It is calculated that during the Civil War, around half a million people left Spain for various reasons.

It is true that in the years following and until 1955, many more Spaniards left the country in search of opportunities abroad, although they were likely not political or religious exiles, but people seeking better opportunities away from post-war Spain's poverty. Furthermore, Spaniards who left during those years had no trouble preserving their nationality, and many of those who went to Latin American countries like Chile, Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Costa Rica, or Dominican Republic had no trouble recovering their nationality because the dictator had signed treaties of dual nationality with them.

Consequently, it cannot be assumed that persecution took place, which forces the need to prove the reasons. If this were not done, the Supreme Court would be nationalizing foreigners who do not meet the requirements. This is exactly what the Supreme Court is trying to prevent with its precautionary measures.