A decree by Argentine President Javier Milei, now struck down transferred the authority to grant citizenship by naturalization from the federal judiciary to the executive branch. Photo by Chema Moya/EPA
An Argentine court struck down a decree by President Javier Milei that transferred the authority to grant citizenship by naturalization from the federal judiciary to the executive branch, reversing a change to a system that had existed for more than 150 years.
This week’s ruling marks another setback for the Milei’s strategy of implementing institutional reforms through emergency decrees rather than legislation approved by Congress.
The decision was issued by Argentina’s National Electoral Chamber, which declared Emergency Decree 366/2025 null and void. Milei signed the decree in October as part of a broader immigration reform package.
The measure tightened immigration controls and shifted responsibility for granting Argentine citizenship by naturalization to the National Directorate of Migration.
Emiliano Herrera, co-founder of Herrera & Flamenco Abogados, told UPI the ruling restores the system established under Citizenship Law 346, enacted in 1869.
“The National Directorate of Migration no longer has the authority to grant Argentine citizenship. That responsibility returns to the federal judges with electoral jurisdiction, as it has historically,” Herrera said.
Herrera said the court declared the decree “absolutely and irreparably null” because the government attempted to change, by executive decree, a matter that Argentina’s Constitution reserves for Congress.
The decree was part of a broader immigration package that sought to tighten migration policy through stricter border controls and tougher requirements for foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in Argentina, Herrera said.
The package also required immigrants to carry health insurance, restricted free access to public health care and higher education for nonpermanent residents, and imposed stricter naturalization requirements, including proof of two years of continuous legal residence without leaving the country.
Immigration attorney Javier Segura, founder of Cassiopeia Immigration Services, told UPI it is unusual for a decree of this nature to be invalidated so categorically.
The government argued that granting citizenship was essentially an administrative procedure that unnecessarily consumed judicial resources, and that the National Directorate of Migration was better equipped to review applications because it already maintained applicants’ immigration records.
Officials also argued the agency already possessed detailed information on applicants because it previously processed their temporary and permanent residency applications.
Segura said the proposal appeared reasonable in theory because it aimed to streamline the process and reduce courts’ workloads, but he said it never functioned effectively.
“It looked like a good idea on paper, but in practice it appeared that the Migration Directorate was never prepared to assume that responsibility. There was no coordination between agencies. It seemed many officials learned about the change only after the decree had already been published,” he said.
He added that the National Directorate of Migration never created a dedicated office to process citizenship applications and continues to face staffing and resource constraints.
According to the National Electoral Chamber, the issue extended well beyond administrative efficiency. Herrera said the court emphasized that citizenship is the legal status that allows individuals to exercise fundamental political rights, including voting and participating in the country’s democratic process.
“For that reason, everything related to granting citizenship forms part of the electoral system, a matter that receives special constitutional protection,” Herrera said.
The court also concluded that the executive branch failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required to justify the use of an emergency decree. Argentina’s Constitution expressly prohibits presidents from issuing such decrees on electoral matters and requires special congressional majorities to amend those laws.
“The government’s arguments, such as improving administrative efficiency or reducing judges’ workloads, are matters of political discretion that should be debated by Congress and do not constitute a constitutional emergency authorizing the executive branch to legislate by decree,” Herrera said.
The case originated with a legal challenge filed by a Chinese citizen living in Oro Verde, in Argentina’s Entre Ríos province, where he lives with his wife and children and operates a supermarket.
The man, who has lived in Argentina since 2015 and has no criminal record, applied for Argentine citizenship. However, the National Directorate of Migration rejected his residency application and sought his deportation, even though the National Electoral Chamber found that he met the requirements established under Argentina’s citizenship law.
Herrera said the court also distinguished between a person’s immigration status and the legal right to obtain citizenship by naturalization, concluding that the two are governed by different legal frameworks. A migration-related irregularity, the court said, does not automatically prevent a person from acquiring Argentine nationality if the legal requirements are otherwise satisfied.
Based on that reasoning, the court overturned the denial of the application, granted Argentine citizenship to the Chinese applicant and declared unconstitutional the decree that triggered the dispute.
After the ruling, Herrera said the naturalization process will return to the long-standing system under which federal judges with electoral jurisdiction are responsible for granting citizenship.
