Argentine nationality law regulates the manner in which one acquires, or is eligible to acquire, Argentine nationality. Nationality, as used in international law, describes the legal methods by which a person obtains a national identity and formal membership in a nation. Citizenship refers to the relationship between a nation and a national, after membership has been attained. Argentina recognizes a dual system accepting Jus soli and Jus sanguinis for the acquisition of nationality by birth and allows foreign persons to naturalise.
Recent changes by the Decree DNU 366 / 2025 have tightened the requirement to get citizenship, but allowing investment methods.
Terminology The distinction between the meaning of the terms citizenship and nationality is not always clear in the English language and differs by country. Generally, nationality refers to a person's legal belonging to a country and is the common term used in international treaties when referring to members of a state; citizenship refers to the set of rights and duties a person has in that nation.
It can be possible for a non-national to obtain a degree of civil and political rights commonly associated with citizenship (e.g., residence or working rights) while it is also possible for a national to be prohibited from exercising certain rights (e.g., children barred from voting). In Argentine, the term "nationality" (nacionalidad) refers to state membership while "citizenship" (ciudadanía) describes a person's participation in national society.
Introduction to History 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.D'Altroy, Terence N. The Incas. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003 (87-88). 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.Morris, Craig. “Inka Strategies of Incorporation and Governance.” In Archaic States, ed. Gary m. Feinman and Joycee Marcus, pp293-309. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
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.D'Altroy, 47-48. Imperial, administrative titles were given to local officials and ethnic/ayllu leaders, thus incorporating them into the empire's broader, administrative structure.D'Altroy, 177. The Inca conducted detailed censuses using the quipu. Inclusion on the census made one, officially, an Inca subject,D'Altroy, 234-235. 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.D'Altroy, 248. 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.Herzog, "Defining Nations," 54.
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 naturalisation. 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.Herzog, Tamar. “’A Stranger in a Strange Land’: The Conversion of Foreigners into Members in Colonial Latin America,” in Constructing collective identities and shaping public spheres: Latin American paths. Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 1998, pp.45-65.
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.Herzog, "Defining Nations," 49-50. 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.Herzog, "Defining Nations," 50.
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.Herzog, "Defining Nations," 61. 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.Herzog, "Defining Nations," 148-149.
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.Spektorowski, Alberto. “Collective Identity and Democratic Construction: The Cases of Argentina and Uruguay,” in Constructing collective identities and shaping public spheres: Latin American paths. Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 1998, pp. 103-122. 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 naturalisation 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.Waisman, Carlos H. “The Dynamics of National Identity Frames,” in Constructing collective identities and shaping public spheres: Latin American paths. Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 1998, pp. 147-167.