Still electioneering and dog whistle politics, I know.
But concerning that this has progressed from off-the-cuff comments by AntĂłnio LeitĂŁo Amaro last week to an actual AD (PSD+CDS) electoral programme statement (from page 143 here):
Reviewing the requirements for granting Portuguese nationality, particularly with regard to foreign citizens, extending the minimum time of residence and effective presence in national territory, eliminating the possibility of legal residence being considered for the purposes of counting this time requirement.
Good news is that itâs front page on IMI Daily, home of many GV peddlers. Hopefully will freak them out enough to get on the phone with all their political and legal friends.
PS. Donât you just love politicians? On page 215 of this same manifesto, AD say the following⊠pot kettle black??? Page 215 is basically criticising their own proposal on page 143âŠ
The disregard for protecting the confidence of investors, especially foreign investors, observed by socialist governments and leaders who⊠are now multiplying legislative initiatives and announcements that unilaterally and even retroactively break with commitments and regimes of the Portuguese state, as has happened with local accommodation licences, residence permits for investment, tax rules such as those for non-habitual residents.
That IMI headline is clickbait - it doesnât really stand up to scrutiny once you dig into the details.
The AD party platform says they want to tighten the rules for acquiring Portuguese citizenship in general. That could mean longer residence requirements, more time physically present in the country each year, and excluding any time spent in irregular status. But that section doesnât call out Golden Visa holders at all. Given that Portugal has broader migration management issues, and GV residents are a small and well-documented group, itâs entirely possible these changes are aimed elsewhere.
Whatâs more relevant for most people on this forum is that the platform specifically criticises retroactive changes made by the previous government to the Golden Visa program, using it as an example of how investor trust was damaged. The only time the GV program is mentioned, itâs to highlight that the government shouldnât be changing the rules after people are already approved.
So thereâs acknowledgment that retroactive changes create legal and reputational problems. Thatâs the point I was trying to argue yesterday. We donât yet know how theyâll reconcile these two positions, but it does suggest they understand the legal and political risks of targeting people who entered under the old rules and the damage that would do to Portugalâs reputation as a place to invest.
By the same token⊠the 2024 amendment to Portuguese Nationality Law (Lei OrgĂąnica 1/2024, March 5, 2024) - which adjusts the residency period calculation - also doesnât call out Golden Visa/ARI holders at all.
Do we really get to be so selective which Nationality amendments apply or donât to GVs?
This is a policy document, not legislation. I made a probabilistic assessment, not a selective one. And as I made clear, my main point was the platform reinforces ADâs objections to retroactive changes in GV requirements for those already approved. Iâm not sure how much clearer they can be on that point. I think this thread is getting a little ahead of itself on very little info.
Large relative to what? I would argue this is just election pandering and not to fret too much, ADâs polling numbers are getting worse by the day and it looks like PS will probably take the election and will get dibs on trying to form government.
I would wait until the election is over before doing anything.
Let me start by saying that yes, I know the Portugal ARI/GV is not the same as Maltaâs âcitizenship by investmentâ programme.
But todayâs ECJ ruling is a reminder that the EU is not a huge fan of âinvestment migrationâ in general. Were PT to move the goalposts on citizenship for GVs and increase whatâs required for âmeaningful connections between applicantsâ and PT, I suspect the EU would be very much in favour.
The ruling compels Malta to terminate its citizenship by investment program entirely, fulfilling the Commissionâs original demand when it first sent a formal notice to Malta in October 2020. Malta now remains the only EU member state with such a program after Cyprus suspended its program in November 2020 and Bulgaria abolished its programin April 2022.
The decision limits member statesâ discretion in nationality matters when they affect the collective value of EU citizenship.
This decision carries considerable implications for investment migration across Europe. EU citizenship automatically confers rights to free movement, access to the internal market, and voting rights in European electionsâprivileges that, according to the court, require more than just financial means.
The victory for the Commission comes nearly three years after it first referred the case to the ECJ in September 2022. The Commission maintained that âgranting EU citizenship in return for pre-determined payments or investments without any genuine link to the Member State concerned is not compatible with the principle of sincere cooperation.â
The ruling sets a legal precedent that investment-based citizenship programs cannot operate within the EU legal framework without establishing meaningful connections between applicants and the naturalizing state. It clarifies the balance between EU oversight and national sovereignty in citizenship matters.
Curious, does this ruling affect Maltaâs current (expedited naturalization) program?
My understanding is at the time the court case started (2020) Malta had a straight up cash for citizenship program, but this was already ended and replaced by the expedited naturalization program, which requires 1-3 years residence in addition to investment for citizenship.
Youâre right to highlight Malta was a different situation, more a golden passport than a visa. Citizenship in 12 months with a âŹ750,000 contribution to the government and you only had to visit the country once. There was no requirement to speak Maltese or English or to pass any civic test, and those integration factors were some of the reasons the EU was mad. Much laxer laws than Portugal has ever had.
Residency-by-investment like Portugalâs are less likely to be banned outright, but will probably face pressure for stricter rules for future applications, possibly higher physical presence requirements, or be phased into more standard immigration pathways (e.g. startup visas, passive income residency).
Portugal already soothed some of those tensions with the EU when it got rid of real estate and capital transfer options in 2023, narrowing it to long term funds, job-creating or cultural investments. Those changes were made to align the program more closely with EU requests for genuine integration, reduce risks of abuse and money laundering etc.
The problem Portugal faces now is that the ARI has now become the most convenient residency pathway in Europe, but not yet clear how much of a problem that is for the EU, if at all. Portugal has already complied with a lot of the EU integration requirements. And five years residency before citizenship is not uncommon in the EU (France, Belgium, Netherlands etc) but the lower physical presence flexibility of ARI stands out.
The alternative is that Portugal generally grandfathers active ARI applications into whatever negative actions (eg 2021 restrictions and real estate investment option removal ) so if you want to take advantage of that it might be worth putting something into an open -investment fund or ant least have everything absolutely ready. This would very likely mitigate the âphysical presenceâ risk and an open investment fund would allow you to reverse it your decision if you donât like it. Open question about any citizenship changes. So far , waiting to apply hasnât helped anyone. Consider your appetite for losing the processing costs.
That was my interpretation as well, in the other thread. Nothing in this ruling seems to suggest that investor residence visas are on the chopping block, but this could conceivably lead to a re-imagining of the physical presence requirements to naturalize. If you live in Portugal then this probably doesnât change much, but if youâre just doing your two weeks a year, there is a risk now of getting rug pulled.
