When the editor of one of Veneto’s oldest newspapers tries to explain to the public why the Italian government has decided to restrict citizenship iure sanguinis, the least one would expect is that he consult the facts. Or, at the very least, Google.
But it wasn't the case that Robert Papetti (65), director of Il Gazzettino. In response to a reader outraged by the new Italian law, he wrote:
"But above all, many wanted to have a passport that would allow them to enter many countries without a visa, especially the United States (something that is not possible with Brazilian or Argentinian documents, for example)."
The sentence reveals more than a factual error. It shows contempt for an entire audience and, perhaps, a certain pride in one's own ignorance.
In 2023, the United States will issue more than 1,1 million visas for Brazilians, according to official data from US Department of StateAnd they continue issuing them. The Brazilian passport, contrary to what the director thinks, it is not a useless document for those who want to cross the Atlantic.
Public health in Italy: queues, waiting and frustration
Papetti continues his tragicomic work by citing, as an argument in favor of the “regulation” of citizenship, the supposed unhindered access to the Italian public health system.
The report Salute cannot be attended, published in June 2024 by Federconsumatori, shows a very different reality:
- 612 days waiting for an endocrinological consultation at the ASL in Messina;
- 400 days for a first vascular consultation in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano;
- 351 days for neurology at Azienda Sanitaria Napoli 1 Centro.
If this is “unhindered access,” imagine with obstacles. Italy’s healthcare system, although public and universal, cannot serve its own local population in a reasonable time. What about non-residents with a newly obtained passport.
The illusion of common sense
In the conclusion of his letter, the director states that “regulating this system does not seem to me to be a violation of rights, but simply a common sense choice.”
The reader who provoked your response, Roberto Soncin, offered historical, emotional and legal arguments. He spoke of his great-grandfather, who left Caorle, passed through Brazil and returned. He questioned the urgency of the law, the bureaucratic slowness and the logic behind the new rules. He was answered with generalizations, misinformation and irony.
In the end, the government's choice may even be one of “common sense” — if that sense is that of a country that prefers eliminate the problem of excess requests by deleting the right of origin, instead of reorganizing their structures.
What this story shows us is that the tragedy of Italian mismanagement intersects with the unintentional comedy of ill-informed journalists. When ignorance rises to the top, it gains voice, authority — and, unfortunately, space.
