Report on Citizenship Law: Cuba content18: “the final vision must be that all, absolutely all the inhabitants of a State must be property owners. Not because of the fear “that it is dangerous to irritate to the extreme the man who has nothing to lose”, but because of a strict spirit of fairness and love for the neighbour; a social function that we will soon deal with if we do not prefer capital” (López Rovirosa 1936). The constitutional regulation of 1940 regarding the status of citizenship expressed these contents, in multiple dimensions. It fundamentally maintained the causes of acquisition and loss of 1901, with modifications tending to their facilitation. All Cubans born on the territory of the Republic would be Cuban by birth, with the exception of the children of foreigners who were in the service of their government; those born on foreign territory, to a Cuban father or mother, by the mere fact of living in Cuba; those who, having been born outside the territory of the Republic to a father or mother natural of Cuba who had lost its nationality, and who claimed Cuban citizenship in the manner provided by law; foreigners (a novelty with respect to 1901, as an honorary concession of citizenship by birth) who for a year or more had served in the Liberation Army, and who had remained in it until the end of the War of Independence. On the other hand, naturalisation would be granted to foreigners who, after five years of continuous residence in the territory of the Republic, and not less than one after having declared their intention to acquire Cuban nationality, obtained the citizenship card, provided they knew the Spanish language. Furthermore, the foreign man who contracted marriage with a Cuban women, and the foreign women who contracted it with a Cuban man, when they had offspring as a result of such union or had two years of continuous residence in the country after the celebration of their marriage (these requirements were new with respect to the constitutional laws of 1934 and 1935). Dual citizenship was prohibited. Citizenship cards and certificates of Cuban nationality were exempted from taxation. Citizenship was lost by acquiring a foreign one; by entering the military service of another nation, without the permission of the Senate, or by carrying out functions that implied authority or jurisdiction (the latter, a novelty with respect to 1901); for residing three consecutive years in the country of birth (in the case of naturalised citizens, which lowered the requirement of 1901 in two years), unless they express every three years, before the consular authority, their will to preserve their Cuban citizenship; and for accepting double citizenship (a novelty regarding 1901). The law would determine the crimes and causes for the loss of citizenship by naturalisation, by means of a judicial decision. Unlike other unconstitutionalities by omission (provisions of law that were never issued), the issue of citizenship did have accessory legislation: in 1940 the Citizenship and Migration Regulations were approved (Decree 3022 of 28 October) and then the Decree 358 of 1944, “Citizenship Regulation” (Official Gazette 1944). Never could the legislator at the time imagine that such Decree would retain (partial) validity. This is because, as will be discussed later, no other regulation on the subject have been dictated since 1976. The socialist constitution, in force since then is however substantially different from its 1940 predecessor. The dimension of citizenship as an active practice was central the text of the 1940 Constitution. Those who prohibited or limited citizen participation in the political life of the nation were declared punishable (Article 38), as was coercion on behalf of the authorities compelling citizens to join a particular political party or preventing them from expressing 18 For Doménech and Bertomeu the fundamental problem of the republican tradition can be sintetised in ths way: “given the plural motivation of agents, how to design the best social institutions (including the basic institutions that causally influence the distribution of property and the access to the means of social existence” (Doménech, Bertomeu 2005, p. 66). 14 RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2020/3- © 2020 Author(s)