That’s a bit like saying we don’t know if the speed limit is in miles or kms, but just drive at 60 to be safe.
The issue with the “failure modes” argument is that it assumes any uncertainty with AIMA can be dealt with just by adding another trip. That only works if the extra days count towards the right period and are enough to satisfy whatever theoretical obligation might exist in the grey zone period. I haven’t seen any legal basis for either assumption.
The law says 7 days “in the first year” and 14 days “in subsequent periods of two years.” As the scheme is set up, 1+2+2 aligns with permit periods. It doesn’t say those periods keep running when no residence permit is valid, how days during a renewal gap would be allocated, or that continued lawful residence after your card expires maintains every obligation attached to the expired permit. There is no regulation clearly authorising AIMA to impose a stay requirement during a period when no residence permit is valid. To get to your conclusion, you have to supply both the starting point for the 2 year periods and the idea that the clock keeps running through renewal gaps. Neither is in the text.
That also means extra travel isn’t automatically the “safe” option. If AIMA measures the requirement against the actual validity dates of the cards, days during the gap might not count at all. If the requirement continues to run from the expiry of the previous card, you might decide to add a trip but have no idea which 2 year period those days fall into or how many days that period requires. If you try to pro-rate days for an 8 month gap, you might just make the wrong calculation. None of this is as risk-free as some seem to believe.
This may not affect you if you can travel to Portugal whenever and for as long as you like. But for families with several cards on different timelines, “just travel more” means a time-consuming and expensive guessing game. Some of us invested in the program precisely because it had low residence requirements. We have businesses and commitments in other countries. Proper legal analysis has practical consequences.
Anyone is free to travel more often to feel safer, but feeling is not legal analysis. My lawyers reviewed the law and spoke to AIMA. Their advice was that the stay requirement is counted against the validity period of the permit, and they have given the same advice to many other clients. For my risk assessment, that’s enough.
We’ve renewed twice by counting our stays against the validity periods of our cards, not calendar years, not a continuous clock from the first card, and not counting the gaps between cards. So it’s hard to say our counterargument is obviously less desirable while the other approach is obviously safe.
And to be blunt, some of the more conservative advice floating around looks like immigration lawyers covering their own liability by recommending “do more just in case”. It may sound simpler, but it shouldn’t be mistaken for proof that the advice is legally correct or even safer. Given the ballooning costs associated with this program, you can forgive me for not wanting to throw more good money after bad.
.