a) I intend to move to Europe with my wife, b) I pursued this like I was being chased by hell-hounds (in a sense I was, it was Dec. of '04 and the GOP and W had been reinstalled), c) yes I intend to vote in any election that I am able, early and often (just kidding).

And your mother was born after 1947, right?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

you are the media you consume.

One can essentially only acquire nationality after residence of

• 1 year if you are born on Spanish soil, you had the option to acquire the nationality but didn't exercise it, you have been under stewardship of a person or institution in Spain, you have been married to a Spaniard for a year, you are the vidowed spouse of a Spaniard, you are born outside Spain with a Spanish parent or grandparent;
  
• 2 years if you are from Latin America, Andorra, Phillippines, Ecuatorial Guinea, Portugal or Sephardic Jew.
  
• 5 years for refugees
  
• 10 years for anyone else.

Afaik Sweden has no grand-parent clauses. Germany has some ethnicity rules. But what about the rest of EU?

Wikipedia's entry on jus sanguinis has a summary (albeit with at least one possible error) on various countries jus sanguinis policies.

And another question: as policies get more coordinated, and an EU passport gets more important then what particular country it is from, what about the future? Is a common policy on migration in the works?

I could find only a few relevant mentions on Europa.eu:

Resolution on respect for human rights in the European Union (1996)

The European Parliament, ...

Acknowledges that the rules governing nationality are a matter for Member States and can be based, as a matter of principle, both on "jus sanguinis¨ and "jus soli¨; reiterates that the exercise of civic rights should be linked to the acquisition of nationality; calls on Member States to enable third-country nationals who have secured the right of long-term residence and intend to remain in the EU to acquire nationality; ...

and less relevantly,

REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBER STATES IN 2005:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (PDF)

Italy is one of the Member States where access to the citizenship is the most difficult for immigrants and their children469. Italian legislation privileges indeed the jus sanguinis principle. For being authorised to access the Italian citizenship, a long period of legal residence (10 years) is required. The Parliament is currently discussing a proposal which aims at shortening this period, however no agreement has been reached at yet on such proposal. The Network notes, first, that such stringent conditions for accessing the Italian citizenship470 favour illegal organizations and the traffic of false registrations in the register of births : thus, there have been reports about the racket of false birth certificates - paid 20.000 euros - discovered by the police of Rome in November 2005. Second, thus confirming the fears expressed by the Network in its Thematic Comment n°3 cited above, these conditions also cause discriminations in many other fields, especially accommodation in public housing, where points are given to the applicants if they are Italian citizens, and in employment, where, as appears from the Report Ires-CGIL `Lavoratori immigrati nel settore edile' of July 2005, migrant workers are often paid less than Italian workers471.

Also,

The Legal Status of Third Country Nationals who are Long-Term Residents in a Member State of the European Union (PDF)

Notwithstanding the older academic literature, which indicates very substantial differences in acquisition of nationality in the Member States, there are clear indications that the systems are beginning to approach one another in Europe. There are still substantial differences as regards whether dual nationality is permitted or not with Austria, Denmark and Germany being the most strict and Belgium, Ireland, France, Portugal and the UK the most flexible. In Italy and the Netherlands either the law or the practice on dual nationality has become more flexible during the 1990ies.  In Sweden the issue has been under discussion for considerable time in relation to its policy on the social integration of immigrants. However, the much discussed difference between ius sanguinis and ius soli is much blurred now in the Member States of the European Union, especially after Germany at the beginning of the new Millennium introduced the ius soli for the second generation immigrants. Even in the last state to maintain a system of complete ius soli, Ireland, there are proposals to change the law to a more mixed system. In most other Member States a combination of birth on the territory and the status of the parents is critical to the acquisition either automatic or by declaration of nationality by the second generation.

Benchmarking in Immigrant Integration (PDF)

2.3. The legal-political dimension: jus sanguinis versus jus soli

Irrespective of the degree of permanency in their perception of immigration, all Member States sooner or later have seen themselves faced with growing numbers of non-indigenous residents, many of whom are not EU-citizens. Therefore, states must reflect on the legal and political position they wish to grant to these people and their children. Here we may also distinguish between two approaches, which tell us something about the nature of the integration process as it is envisaged by the host societies. Most illustrative in this context is the classical distinction between jus soli and jus sanguinis. The jus soli system is based on the principle of territoriality. Under this system all people resident in a territory have the same rights, irrespective of their ancestry or length of residence. For newly arrived immigrants there may be a short transition period, during which these rights can be acquired gradually. The jus sanguinis system, by contrast, is governed by the principle of descent. Full citizenship and all rights related to that status (e.g. voting rights or access to public service) are passed on from one generation to the next along the `lines of blood'. Citizenship and political status are acquired by birth. This implies that not all residents of one country are treated similarly. Immigrants and those who descend from immigrants, and sometimes also national minorities, may have rights and obligations that differ from those of the dominant population.

Of course, both systems are ideal types; reality usually offers a mixture of the two models, with considerable differences between the Member States. Traditionally, the United Kingdom presents one of the most outspoken examples of jus soli. Under the present legislation, anyone born in that country is a British citizen. Germany, by contrast, long favoured the jus sanguinis system. Access to German citizenship used to be extremely difficult for anyone who had no German parent, even for the second and subsequent generations born and living in Germany. The other side of this coin was that ethnic Germans (Aussiedler) `returning' from Eastern Europe - even after several generations - were granted German citizenship from the very moment of their settlement in Germany. Because of their German descent they are not seen as immigrants, even though their social situation and their needs are highly comparable to that of new arrivals from other countries. In the last few years, however, more elements of jus soli have been introduced into the German system. French policies in this field oscillate between the British and the German approach. When the Right is in power it tends to listen to the nationalists and to favour jus sanguinis, whilst the Left tends to give more weight to the interests of the second generation of immigrants.

The distinction between jus sanguinis and jus soli is fundamental in any analysis of integration, since it defines ways individuals can accede to membership of a new state system. Several scholars have argued that this distinction reflects deeply rooted differences between nation states in their cultural traditions and in their self-image (Hammar 1990, Bauböck 1994, Joppke 1999a). In practice, however, the distinction has primarily legal and political implications. The legal implications refer to rights and entitlements that are normally linked to citizenship - and usually not to other types of entitlements, for example in the sphere of social policy or education. The political implications refer to possibilities of influencing decision-making processes in the public sphere. The possession of active and passive voting rights is the most outspoken expression of this. However, the legal and political situation of immigrants may have obvious effects on their social and economic position as well as on their cultural situation, but in essence these effects are indirect. Therefore, integration and integration policies should be understood more broadly than the mere access to citizenship and the granting of rights to immigrants.

and again here:

Rules for naturalisation differ from one Member State to another. The two main citizenship regimes, jus sanguinis and the jus soli form the basis of these differences. Especially countries whose laws on citizenship are largely based on jus sanguinis (citizenship based on descent) have had to make changes in order to facilitate naturalisation for their migrants. An additional difference is that some Member States are much more sympathetic than others are towards migrants possessing dual citizenship. Some Member States demand from migrants to abandon their old citizenship upon becoming naturalised, as they assume that dual citizenship is a potential for conflicting loyalties. In this view, citizenship clearly means more than the mere attribution of rights and duties. Citizenship also contains notions of `national identity' that are meant to generate a `cohesive society'. However, this sense of nationality as an integral part of a shared identity is not felt to the same extent in all Member States.

Until 2000 German citizenship legislation was based almost exclusively on jus sanguinis. The idea of jus soli was absent and naturalisation was extremely complicated. This was partly to emphasise that Germany was not an immigration country. Moreover, naturalisation could only take place if this was considered to be in the German interest. The interest of the migrant was not taken into account. Dual citizenship was not allowed. Since 2000, however, children born to foreign parents in Germany may possess dual citizenship until the age of 23, after which they have to make a choice between German citizenship and the citizenship of their parents.

Whereas in Germany it used to be difficult to obtain German citizenship, in France, people of Algerian descent protested against a decision, taken in the early 1990s, that second-generation migrants automatically obtained French citizenship. They saw this as a form of neo-colonialism. Others who were opposed to this policy also claimed that the link between French citizenship and French national identity became unclear as a result of it. (Broeders 2001). In 1993 French naturalisation legislation changed again. From then on, children of migrants born in France had to express their will to become naturalised. Prior to naturalisation they had to have lived in France for at least 5 years. In France the issue of dual citizenship has never really been defined as a problem, as it has been in other countries. Even the nationalists have not tried to prohibit it (Brubaker 1992).

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if many young Argentinians were not considering acquiring Italian Citizenship to come to Spain (for language reasons) as EU citizens. 100 years ago Italy was impoverished and Argentina was the land of opportunity, but the EU seems to be doing better now than Argentina.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

Remember it came into force at the time of Italy's reunification in 1861. Difficult times and lots of recent wars... and in the long struggle for reunification many Italian nationalists had been exiled. Plus the Venetian republic - whose territory used to extend all down the Dalmatian coast and included various widely-scattered Greek islands - had collapsed less than a century earlier leaving behind large swathes of Italians in its wake.. plus trading colonies in Egypt, Lebanon and parts of Greece - all with uncertain futures.  Plus Italians had already started emigrating to seek work not only in the "New World" (US, Argentina, Venezuela, Canada, Australia etc....) but also in wealthier and more industrialised European countries further north... usually with the initial intention of ultimately returning home with enough money to make the whole village die of envy.  Some managed it, many died abroad of hardship and overwork .. and some stayed on permanently.

Re "nobody came back" - not true even in the case of emigrants to the US: I personally know several families with great-grandparents, grandparents or  parents who had emigrated to the US then ended up returning to Italy. Carlo Levi's famous book "Christ stopped at Eboli" tells the stories of several former emigrants from the South... emigrating - or sending family members off to work abroad - was often the only way peasant families could hope to better their lot, buy land or set up in business as shopkeepers etc.  Same thing is true of a great many immigrants in Europe today.  Of course both then and now many end up getting married with someone they meet in their new environment so decide to stay on and start a family, see how it goes...

"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami

But many Italian Americans got citizenship in the US pretty quickly.  Their issue afterward is barred I believe so the numbers aren't so great.  That's what kills it for my wife (not that she has any interest)

I was just as astonished as you when I read gioele's clarification above.

If only France or Ireland could be so welcoming to their estranged offspring...

Probably won't have much luck with France, but according to Wikipedia:

Ireland: The Nationality and Citizenship Act allows any person with an Irish grandparent to become an Irish citizen "by registering in the Foreign Births Register at an Irish embassy or consular office, or at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin." Such an individual may also pass his entitlement to Irish nationality on to his children by registering in the Foreign Births Register even if he chooses not to take up citizenship himself. Section 16 of the Irish citizenship law of 1986 grants the interior minister authority to confer automatic citizenship on any applicant of "Irish origin or affiliation" although this is sparingly used.

So if I am reading this correctly, if you have a great-grandparent who was an Irish citizen, your mother or father (descended from that great-grandparent) could register at the Foreign Births Register at an Irish embassy or consular office and then pass on Irish citizenship to you.  Or, you could simply try to apply through Section 16 (though that sounds less easy to do.)

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

DUAL NATIONALITY

Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship. It is prudent, however, to check with authorities of the other country to see if dual nationality is permissible under local law. Dual nationality can also occur when a person is naturalized in a foreign state without intending to relinquish U.S. nationality and is thereafter found not to have lost U.S. citizenship the individual consequently may possess dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government does not endorse dual nationality as a matter of policy because of the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place them in situations where their obligation to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts to provide U.S. diplomatic and consular protection to them when they are abroad.

And further up on that page:

POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING STATUTES

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

(2) taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

(3) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

(4) accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

Now, mind you, I guess those that return fairly young might make it - theres been a fair bit of return to Ireland, though lots of those were returning from the UK, which is different: they weren't all that far away to start with. My parents returned in their 30s and adapted fine. My aunt returned after a full working life in the UK and didn't.