Yes, most of us on this forum still donāt have our residence cardsā¦ 
6 Likes
I think you are trying to convince the wrong group of people: we do not disagree that the immigration helps aging countries or those with declining populations. We also know that few GVs contribute large quantity of money towards Portuguese economy, but thatās not how an average Portuguese perceives it. They just see Glovo delivery drivers and rising prices of their housing. They act on emotion, not on reason, and politicians need their votes. Hence the slogans and proposals, and little reason to go along with it.
2 Likes
This petition showed up on my social media feed.
https://participacao.parlamento.pt/initiatives/5005.
Just a thought - better than doing nothing so signed up for this.
The following is someoneās post for the social media:
āFor those who have or are signing the petition to create a transitional regime, which has reached over the 7500, we should keep it ticking up, there are 2 other petitions relating to the proposed new immigration changes on the Assembleia Da Republica Site . Both Petitions try to protect the start time for citizenship as to when the resident application is made (D7, D8 etc). They have 5414 and 3484 signatures respectively. I do not want to post the links as they may end up as spam.ā
The petition does not cater to ARI holders and appears to be aimed at creating a transitional regime. Section 4 ā the part concerning equality ā misses the point that the current approach results in the systemic disadvantage of ARI holders and applicants who applied under SEF and have been waiting for final approval for 3ā4 years. During this time, SEF failed to meet its obligation to process visas within 90 days, while more recent ARI applicants have been advantaged following the transfer of responsibilities from SEF to AIMAā¦
The other two petitions the post mentioned may address the point.
But again, it was a handy option for me to take an action. So I did. Iām looking for the other petitions.
1 Like
Also a GV holder, and a lawyer. This is my understanding as well. All that our qualifying investments (and exorbitant fees) buy us is a waiver of the requirement to be physically resident in Portugal in order to qualify as ālegally residentā. As such, we can tick the residency requirement set out in other laws for things like family reunification, permanent residency, and citizenship. There is no GV āpathwayā and all other requirements in those laws still apply and must be met, including the length of time.
The government changing these other laws has always been a major risk associated with the GV. As it is, the government fiddles (rather randomly) with the citizenship laws pretty much every year. I might have missed advertising by the government, but all Iāve seen from them on various sites is information about the law as it currently stands. Canāt say the same for the GV bottom feeders selling completely unrealistic expectations, misrepresenting the law, and discounting the obvious political and legal risks. I think theyāre the ones that are really exposed to litigation at this point. Hopefully these new laws put a good few out of business.
2 Likes
With all respect, you keep making this point as if it is the end of the matter but that is not correct. Of course laws can change, but saying āthey never committed that it will always be five yearsā ignores how rule-of-law systems function, especially when public authorities solicit large investments under a legal framework they themselves designed and promoted.
A government that invites foreign capital with the explicit promise of citizenship after five years of residency (and there is plenty of evidence that was the deal), and then benefits from those investments, cannot arbitrarily rewrite the terms after the fact without breaching fundamental legal principles. This is just the kind of thing that people, companies and governments get taken to court over all the time.
7 Likes
An interesting quick read from a parallel universe 
, quoting a certain legal precedent in favor of legitimate expectations:
3 Likes
ā¦or if they do, theyāre sending the message that they ought never to be trusted again, which is a pretty bad position for a state that desires foreign investment to be in!
5 Likes
Exceptionally reasonable take. Let us hope such cooler heads prevail in Portuguese courts as well.
I understand how youāre interpreting āas it standsā here, but in good-faith investment contexts, that interpretation might be legally challengeable if it leads to retroactive disadvantages contrary to prior expectations explicitly promoted by the state. Iād argue the fact we put up large amounts of capital in regulated funds or real estate as a precursor to applying puts us in a different legal category to other immigrants. And it creates all sorts of other legal exposure for the government.
4 Likes
Or if they donāt prevail by themselves, we may need to prepare a āNG forum vs. Portuguese Stateā caseā¦
5 Likes
Should we be starting a separate thread with screenshots, etc. of said evidence from past years?
I donāt have anything from official bodies like this in my old GV files. Just some promo materials from my GV advisor which allude to 5 years on one page.
3 Likes
I agree, and as you may see there is almost direct comparison to the HSMP case of 2006 in the UK, where the then UK govt. decided to screw the HSMP immigrants on two counts:
- extending the duration to permanent residence (and thereafter to citizenship) by 1 more year (from 4 to 5);
- preventing some of them from renewing their temp. residence due to changes to program criteria applied retrospectively.
So it was almost exactly the same scenario as is now playing out with the ARI holders here in PT:
- extension of time to citizenship two-fold (i.e. even worse than the HSMP case);
- preventing some of ARI holders or their dependants from renewing the permits e.g. due to investments expiring, children getting married etc etc.
Further similarity can be drawn from the nature of both programs as being specifically created and promoted by the respective governments aimed at attracting immigrants (highly skilled workers under HSMP, investors under ARI).
I would further suggest that ARI case should be significantly stronger than HSMP due to massive financial element involved (which was absent under HSMP, in that people invested their skills/labor rather than tons of cash).
4 Likes
Well, this is Portugal. Normal logic and reason do not always apply. But, to be fair, I think the parties need to show to their constituents that they promoted a radical proposal that was ultimately rejected or watered down: āAt least we tried to deliver! Vote for us again, and we will push it through eventually!ā.
This article gives a preview of the party positions ahead of the parliamentary debates next week.
Ventura suggests Chega is not going to support any of the proposed immigration and citizenship changes if the government doesnāt get rid of family reunion visas, which is something the PSD has said it wonāt do.
And none of the left parties will vote yes because they think the entire program discriminates against poor migrants and is too lenient on golden visas (the PCP leader called GV a āred carpetā ā¦ I guess to a Soviet nostalgist, waiting 24 months for the government to process your application is what passes for āred carpetā treatment)
So in short, both the PSD and Chega have something to lose by backing down. Unless the right leaning parties get on the same page, these changes might be in limbo for a while.
6 Likes
Interesting comparison, though the fundamental legal difference between PT and UK is that the UK has common law and PT has civil law.
To generalize, common law is much more robust in situations that werenāt explicitly specified but obviously implied or intended. Civil law often throws up its hands in such situations.
What was the eventual fate of the HSMP applicants?
2 Likes
UK HSMP Applicants before the change got their original indefinite leave to remain after four years with no change in points system.
4 Likes
This is true too, regardless itās extremely disingenuous by the government to try and apply it retrospectively, I think it breaks EU law but challenging it will be an uphill battle and expensive
I agree with @PTbound that a thread of evidence showing the government explicitly promoting a 5 year track to citizenship would be useful. I entered the GV program in 2014 - which inevitably means Iāve been burned and seen plenty of others burned. I think there are major issues with aspects of Portuguese immigration law and practice that should be taken to the European Court. Not sure thereās a good argument to be made in this case though. Iāve seen a decadeās worth of misleading advertising and advice from lawyers, consultants, realtors etc etc, but have not seen any from the government. If itās there, I might think differently.
Of course GV holders are not the only HNW immigrants. Itās hard to know how one would distinguish the GV ācategoryā of investors from these others - many of whom are arguably more invested since theyāre actually living in Portugal?
In relation to the āinvestment contextā I would be careful about relying on the Anglo-American concept of good faith, as itās not really a feature of civil law systems, and especially not public or administrative law. English administrative law, in particular, is a completely different animal (and, still, much of English immigration law is utterly irrational).
I actually think any investment context argument would come down to the obligation on the investor to do their due diligence - in a context where this was, arguably, an obvious risk. Which brings us back to evidence of what the government was explicitly selling.
Iām all for holding the government accountable, but a lot of the so-called legal advice that Iām seeing at the moment just seems like a continuation of the smoke and mirrors that has pervaded the GV space for the longest time.
3 Likes
Isnāt the proof in the name? Itās called Golden Visa and not Golden Passport. For many even the fact that it gets you access to the Schengen space (for 5 or more yearsā¦) without needing a consular visa is a big deal.
This change is unfair but remember that they did also change it from 6 years to 5 years just a few years ago. So it was shortened at one point. And now itās doubled.
Given that scenario it was a risk that the nationality law could change. Although personally, it happened so fast that I did not see it coming. Literally got brought up in the last months and already is being enacted.
At this point I think it would still be a win if they didnāt force GV holders to spend more time in PT, or higher language requirements, and you could still get citizenship at the end. Of course whether thatās an attractive option for you or not depends on your personal context.
Pretty sure most of the poorer immigrants are going to stick it out through the 15 year period. Which is insane. Thatās too long. But I suppose the whole idea is to discourage people and appease voters. (Historically never worksā¦)
Wouldnāt be surprised if in ten years itās back to five years residence requirement. Demographic pressure is going to be enormous.
1 Like
Thats what is so confusing. the investment that the GV generates is in the billionsā¦ where does it make sense to kill that program? Feel like theres a piece of the puzzle missing