Why not list them all here instead of saying only Finland increasing requirement of citizenship?
I canāt say the exact name for these people because it would violate forum rules. But they are essentially rage baiting so that you will respond to their arguments and help make them feel better about themselves. At the same time, they want to discourage other people.
The best thing to do is to keep a list of these people and donāt engage with them, ever.
3 Likes
@seagu77 Look, Iām sorry, but it is not credible legal reasoning to argue that only past cases involving citizenship rules matter. Courts apply the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations across many areas of law, including pensions, taxes, residency rights, and investment law. The logic is simple. When a government encourages major financial or life commitments under a legal framework, it cannot just rewrite the rules afterward without serious legal risk.
Portugal might try to copy Finland, but as I have said several times, it would be politically and legally much riskier because of the scale of investment involved and the heavy financial reliance GV holders made under the 5 year framework. More to the point, the Finland example is not even comparable. Finland did not have a golden visa program. Their change was a general adjustment to residency timelines, and there were still loopholes that provided a 5 year pathway. Residents with sufficient language proficiency are still allowed to apply after 5 years (although arguably, mastering Finnish grammar is its own punishment). This was not a situation like Portugalās, where the government actively invited passive foreign investment under a specific program and legal timeline.
You can keep brushing that aside if you want, but this is not just personal speculation. It is formal legal advice I received from Portuguese immigration and corporate lawyers at a Big Four firm.
Having a strong and defensible case is not the same thing as guaranteeing a win. But pretending there is āzero probabilityā of success is not how serious legal reasoning works. Courts do not hand down rulings based on forum debates or negative vibes. They weigh serious legal principles like certainty, proportionality, and reliance on the law. Good lawyers rarely talk in absolutes like āzero probabilityā because almost every legal case involves balancing competing principles. Courts do not operate in black and white, and neither should we.
Frankly, these defeatist posts claiming there is zero chance of success do real harm. They spread discouragement at exactly the moment we should be pressing our case. If there is even a credible legal argument to protect GV holders, and there is, it is worth making. Giving up before the legal process even begins is exactly what those who oppose the GV program are hoping for.
The reality is, governments that encourage major investment and then try to change the deal retroactively often find themselves facing real legal consequences. But only if we hold them to account.
7 Likes
Nobody is arguing against our own case. This is not a court of law and none of our cases will be decided based on the outcome of this discussion.
This forum is perhaps one of the only places where potential migrants like us can access the full truth, rather than the utopian fantasies promoted by the agents, funds, lawyers, and pundits who benefit from making people believe that Portugal Golden Visa is still a good deal.
Investing hundreds of thousands of euros, learning a new language, moving your family to a different country, perhaps a different continent ā these are major life decisions with major consequences. We need to base these decisions on reality, not wishful thinking.
For those of us already in the ARI program, while our investment may be a sunk cost, staying in ARI has significant ongoing expenses. Moreover, our time is limited and valuable ā if Portugal will not deliver results, then we need to pursue alternatives.
And even if we decide not to deviate from our original plan, we still need to manage the expectations of our families and friends who trust and count on us. To do that, we need the truth.
For those who have not yet chosen a program, they still have the opportunity to avoid falling victim to this confidence trap. And if we can dissuade enough of them from sinking their hard-earned money into Portugal, then the Portuguese authorities may finally be persuaded to reconsider their disgraceful treatment of the immigrant population investing the most in their country.
4 Likes
Who is saying that we shouldnāt press our case? Can you suggest an effective way to press our case for those of us not physically in Portugal and donāt have advanced Portuguese language skills?
Is there a class action lawsuit we can join? Is there a way to negatively impact the earnings of the agents, lawyers, funds, etc. who benefit from ARI so they will advocate for our cause? Is there a way to damage the popularity of the politicians who are promoting these policies (does Portugal have PACs?)? If so, Iām all for it. Sign me up.
What isnāt going to lead to action is telling people āitās alright, everything will work out,ā which is the easiest way to inspire people to do absolutely nothing.
4 Likes
Exactly. To build a case, you need to know what arguments will be thrown against you, so that you have a counter-argument ready. If you havenāt put serious thought into what might come at you, youāre not ready to defend yourself.
But even better than having to fight for our rights in courtā¦ would be quashing this idea before it germinates into something bigger. So getting the people who already have an audience with PT politicians and bureaucrats to clearly explain the legal and investment reputation downsides. And do it now before it takes root.
3 Likes
Iāve certainly never said āitās alright, everything will work out.ā Iām just not sure whatās gained by shooting down users trying to map out a serious legal strategy. These forums already have hundreds of posts pointing out the risks and trade-offs of the GV program so I think weāre good on that front.
If you are looking for practical steps, here are a few. Write letters to relevant ministers and deputies in the assembly (Iāve already sent one), call your fund manager (many have government connections, Portugal isnāt that big), and if needed, pursue legal action, but only once there is an actual law to challenge (and we are still several months away from that). The point is to apply pressure where it matters. Politicians care about reputation. Investors care about stability. Courts care about legal certainty and legitimate expectations. No one action is enough, but taken together they can shift outcomes. Speaking as someone who invests for a living, disappointing bureaucratic experiences like Portugalās are nothing unusual. Frankly, if someone is not willing to spend a few hundred euros to translate a letter or get basic legal advice, they are not serious about defending their investment.
If after the election there is a clear media hook around harmful proposed changes, NomadGate could help coordinate targeted outreach to serious global outlets like FT and Bloomberg. I would be happy to help. The Portuguese government website is also bilingual with contact forms for all ministers and parties. Portugalās reputation among investors still matters. Politicians who think they can rewrite the rules without consequences are underestimating the damage to trust. And trust is not easily rebuilt (just ask the US).
Constantly talking down our legal position is not realism. It is pessimism disguised as analysis. Recognizing risk does not require catastrophizing. If people sit back and do nothing, the result is guaranteed.
2 Likes
Socrates should be rolling over in his grave.
Am I supposed to only say āhear, hearā to statement like this one belowā¦
ā¦but Iām not allowed to question it? Or worse, when I question it, am I accused of āputting together a case for the enemyā?
Claim you have a legal case, get ready for challenges from whatever direction. Just because an analysis doesnāt lead to the result one likes doesnāt mean one can cover the eyes and (1) pretend the analysis doesnāt exist, and (2) pretend some first-year trainee lawyer in Portugal canāt think of the arguments in the analysis either.
Letās just agree that the probability of the proposed changes to the nationality law being ruled unconstitutional is higher than 0% and lower than 100% (there is no draft amendment, no concrete language to even ask for a written opinion from a law firm). And do this instead:
3 Likes
For the benefit of readers who care about the actual law, I refer you to this recent post:
This is in response to the preceding post that derogates my earlier comment:
This comment thread is surreal. It reminds me of the dwarvesā pessimism at the end of The Chronicles of Narnia.
1 Like
āPrepare for the worst, hope for the best.ā
Itās the official PT GV slogan, look it up! 
3 Likes
āAs amendedā means as the Nationality Act changes, the latest Nationality Act applies to GV holders too. Have you run your optimistic and innovative statute interpretation by your lawyer?
Suppose the parliament passes the law tomorrow to amend 5 years to 10 years, and the constitutional court does not rule it unconstitutional. Suppose you have not submitted your naturalisation application by the time the amendment become effective. Do you get to apply after clocking 5 or 10 years?
Anyhow, it was not my intention to derogate. Hope for the best indeed.
3 Likes
The risks from retroactive changes are obvious. In serious situations, legal prep and political pressure go hand in hand. Itās just common sense. We already know the direction the changes are heading, and thatās more than enough for a lawyer to assess risk. Good lawyers donāt wait around for laws to pass. They get ahead of problems. Iām eligible to apply for citizenship later this year, so I have already taken legal advice in case the rug gets pulled at the last minute.
Nobody here is stopping you or anyone else from asking questions. But misreading arguments and exaggerating disagreements just slows everything down. Youāre seeing a lot more division than there really is. Iām going to put it down to the general fatigue and stress we all feel from this circus ride (letās call it GVSD). If you read more carefully, you would notice we actually agree on quite a bit.
Anyway, I hope we can both focus on practical steps to defend the position of those of us already in the system. That is what people need from this forum, and that is the advice I am trying to share.
1 Like
Letās get granular.
Which ministers are likely to care about this? What is their contact info? You wrote the letter in English or in Portuguese?
Why should my fund manager care when they already have my money? Not trolling, if you know the magic words that will get them to throw their weight around, letās all say them to our fund managers.
Iām happy to spend money to defend my investment if there is an actual plan of attack, such as a class action, or for an individual case, if the court isnāt so overwhelmed that itās dismissing or deprioritizing similar cases without proper consideration.
However, investment still talks louder than words or even lawsuits. The biggest possible impact would be if Golden Visa applications stop or noticeably slow since the announcement. Letās kill their golden goose!
In other words, you disbelieve in the principles of non-retroactivity and legitimate expectations, which are foundations of EU law that have been clearly and extensively explained recently in this thread. I predict that nothing will ever change your mind. You be you.
As you continue to insult me, I will not communicate with you again, and I will not read any more of your posts.
With all respect, you donāt need me to guide you on the granularity, but here are some starters.
AntĆ³nio LeitĆ£o Amaro was the minister who made the announcement of a possible change. You can start with him. Although given how close we are to the election now, Iād wait. Contact details for ministers on the government website. Portuguese or English, whatever you can manage. I sent both.
I donāt know your fund manager so āmagic wordsā are an unreasonable ask. I know mine is connected with PSD ministers. Maybe he will help, maybe not, I havenāt had the conversation yet. But while he already has my money locked-up, a retroactive 10 year residency requirement will diminish the flow of new ARI clients for future VC funds and damage the reputation of Portugal among investors generally, so there is some leverage there.
I donāt think a class action is doable on this area of law in Portugal. We would be on our own but I will certainly be one of those clogging up the system with an individual case. That is something for you to discuss with your lawyer now or once we get more clarity on any proposed changes.
1 Like
Hi everyone,
I have a British passport and Greek residency. Planning to invest in a Portuguese open-ended fund just for citizenship, not to live there or actually use the residency permit.
Am I correct that the 5-year countdown to citizenship starts from the payment date of the residency application, not from when the card is issued?
And no minimum stay is required before getting the permit?
Thanks a lot for any insights!
Hey Brisado:
Your understanding comports with the prevailing wisdom, that 5 year residency terms necessary to apply for citizenship starts from the payment date of the initial application for the GV (assuming that the temporary residency permit is eventually granted). However, I am unaware of anyone who has actually received their citizenship based on this new 5 year residency term (as opposed to the previous requirement that the 5 year term commenced upon the issuance if the initial temporary residency permit).
Additionally, the minimum stay in country requirements only apply for renewal of the initial residency permit, meaning the stay requirement is not triggered until you have a residency permit. For example, I only received my initial 2 year residency permit 3.5 years after applying, so I will be able to apply for my citizenship during the valid period of my initial permit. In theory, if my citizenship application were processed quickly, I would not have to renew my residency permit and thus would never have had to meet the minimum stay requirements. However, as the citizenship application will likely take 2 or maybe 3 years, and a currently valid residency permit is required for the citizenship application to be granted, I will have to meet the minimum stay requirements to renew my residency permit at least once.
Best of luck.