Sorry apparently the 1 year rule is more for applying for visas. It seems for citizenship it’s just countries you were “resident” after 16 which is fuzzier, it excludes tourism but there is no explicit cutoff time.
1 Like
At least according to my lawyer there isn’t a legally defined cutoff, though the authorities seem to try to enforce a 3-month limit that’s apparently not backed up by any law. EDIT: I’ve also seen 6 months listed on some embassy websites.
I’d rely on your lawyer’s advice of whether or not you should choose to list that 9-month stay on your application. They may be more helpful if you don’t ask their advice in writing…
Yeah my understanding is that IRN will presume you have been resident in your country of birth and all countries of citizenship, unless you can prove otherwise (e.g. if you can prove you left your birth country before age 16). It’s often easier to just get the certificates than to prove otherwise.
But apart from that it’s basically on you to attach police checks for countries you’ve been resident. I would guess it’s only fraud if you omit a police check for a country where you actually committed a crime? Omitting an empty police check seems more a paperwork error than fraud. On the citizenship form, you’re basically declaring you haven’t committed a crime:
nunca foi condenado, com trânsito em julgado da sentença, em pena de
prisão igual ou superior a três anos, por crime punível segundo a lei portuguesa
But I’m not a lawyer and this isn’t legal advice.
Hi friends, I’ve been following the posts regarding the law changes, it seems to me that nothing has been passed, is that right? And I wonder where can I monitor the updates more directly?
Thanks
Not really pertinent to the thread, but posting here as I’m curious whether this attached is a subtle way of influencing the nationality debate.
A front page article is saying that GV funds have caused a 30% runup in 2025 of the PSI index (kinda the PT DOW index). No mention is made of the potential changes to the nationality laws, but it doesn’t take much to connect the dots. A passive-aggressive way of telling the political parties – touch this third-rail at your risk.
Anyway, just spitballing while we wait for the wheels to grind along.
7 Likes
Parabens ao novo presidente da República de Portugal, António José Seguro!
Good news for us, as I would bet he will veto a nationality law without grandfathering
Hopefully the AD’s right wing are reading the room with headlines like “landslide” and “maior votação de sempre.”
@garrett I really hope you’re right! 
But PSD+Chega+IL passed the previous version (without grandfathering) with enough votes to override a veto (2/3) anyway, didn’t they? A veto would be symbolic but might only buy a few days delay.
The focus and the mood of the country have altered since the nationality law was debated. The country is now reeling from the devastation caused by the storms and unusual quantities of rain, compounded by a delayed government response. Areas are still isolated, without electricity or internet.
The majority vote for Antonio José Seguro has already toned down the rhetoric by the current prime minister and likely to do so until 9th March when Seguro takes office.
In his campaign, Seguro has said that Parliament is fragmented and takes a short-term electoral view which prevents/delays investment in sectors that require a much longer investment time-frame (eg health). He has also said that laws reflecting national interest (eg the nationality law) must be based on consensus and not reflect intra-party deals. Suggests that PS will be asked to contribute to the consensus.
2 Likes
Delighted Seguro won in resounding fashion, but there is something particularly odious about a hardline anti-immigrant party winning the bulk of the emigrant vote.
1 Like
It is not an emigrant vote, but the vote of portuguese nationals abroad - “no estrangeiro”.
It is a bit ironic that Portuguese abroad vote for a party whose platform is anti-immigrant when they themselves are immigrants, who left for greener pastures. Perhaps unhappiness that they “had to leave”, ie forced out of their country. A vote for change, which Chega appeals to.
1 Like
Quite a few of the brits living in places like Spain voted for Brexit, as did a chunk of immigrants (my Polish stepmother, for example).
Wasn’t it Churchill who said something like “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for the alternatives”?
3 Likes
The definition of “Brits living abroad” might be relevant. Those who were really full-time residents abroad, went to the High Court to fight for their right to vote in the Brexit referendum, and lost.
1 Like
I thought this too, but the Expresso article about it mentions that the number of emigrants who vote is very small because you have to go to a consulate - vote by mail is not allowed. I wonder if the high Chega vote is a reflection of that - only the fanatics bother to go to the polls.
Yes, I also read the article. As it states, votes outside of Portugal are taken at a Consulate, and this naturally limits participation unless there is considerable motivation or concentration of Portuguese in the Consulate locations. I also sense that the Chega vote may be a reflection of motivation.
Shame that the second graphic is not numbers by location.