Governments everywhere try to push through legally flawed programs that are popular with their voters, knowing full well they might get slapped down by courts. Then the politicians shrug and say “we tried, but unelected judges wouldn’t let us”, and round and round it goes.
2 Likes
No, that’s the whole point of many of the posts here, unfortunately. If you haven’t already applied for citizenship, you’re still probably screwed. At least in the current proposal at the time I’m writing this.
Has anything at all changed in the latest proposal? It seems effectively identical to the last one, e.g. complete rug pull on all counts…?
pretty much imo
I’m sorry—I’m still catching up on all the news and details surrounding this new proposal. If the Portuguese government decides to apply the changes retroactively, there’s no guarantee they won’t implement further changes in the future, such as increasing the required length of stay per year.
Unless someone is either desperate to obtain Portuguese citizenship (and a pathway to the EU) or has already made a significant gains on the financial investment, the entire process seems frustrating, uncertain, and hardly worth the trouble.
4 Likes
No, the govt. did not change anything before sending this to the Committee as it was decided last Friday.
Now the Committee is supposed to make the wording all nice and pretty so that all parties could find it amenable and vote for it by a super majority before July 19th (or is it 16th I am not sure…)
They’d need to work real hard if they want to meet their own deadline 
Anyways, I still encourage everyone to put a pen to a paper and write to the Committee instead of writing on this forum (or in addition to, if you have unlimited resources 
)!
I trust the Deputados are keen to hear from us 
Vox populi, vox Dei.
2 Likes
I’m planning to write and send off a couple letters tomorrow. I hope others will join us.
https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/COM/XVIILeg/1CACDLG/Paginas/Composicao.aspx
@tommigun - do you know if the mailing address for the individual deputies would be something specific to their offices or just parliament generally? I know you posted the contact details for Leitão Amaro earlier, but a refresher for everyone can’t hurt.
To be fair, I don’t think they have the authority to promise this. Naturalisation falls outside the scope of both of those agencies. Probably the marketing department at work… This was basically a state sponsored scam and given they are a sovereign nation, there is probably little we could do if the given legislation gets signed into law as it is now.
In some other jurisdictions you maybe entitled to damages but I’m not sure about Portugal. Giving citizenship as compensation for being lied to is not something I see happening.
3 Likes
There is technically not an email but an online form to complete (with attachments) once you click the ‘Enviar e-mail’ button.
But yes, it seems to be going to the individual deputy’s office.
There is also an actual email for the Committee itself, but I preferred to write to the named people. Personal touch 
1 Like
Just to share the main points I expressed, so that we don’t wander off course too much if any of you guys decide to make yourselves heard.
I was coming from an understanding that there would be no way to block amendments to the law in general as the latest elections showed a particular trend, and the ruling parties are hell bent on pressing on with ‘something’.
So, I boiled the argument down to three key things, demanding the following for all existing ARI holders and applicants :
- grandfathering of the 5 years term to citizenship;
- grandfathering of ‘Contagem do tempo’ as counted from the date of initial application;
- continuation of the right to family reunification and future renewals of the same.
14 Likes
While you may offer it in good faith, I feel that this is not a persuasive argument. The legal principle of legitimate expectations does not presume that every person is an expert legal scholar in contract and constitutional law, and knows the org chart and competency matrix of the government by heart. That separation of competencies between SEF/AIMA and IRN is not intuitive or well-advertised.
SEF was the official immigration agency of the Portuguese government, and AIMA is today. They have both attested ARI residents’ right to apply for naturalization under specified conditions, and still do today. I don’t think that an obscure org chart issue invalidates the onus of the government to deliver on its promises.
4 Likes
sorry I have not read the whole thread, but is there an email address I can send a letter to lawmakers? Or to some US official in Portugal that can speak to legislators in Portugal to make our case? if there is, pinning that information to the top of this thread or a new thread would be great.
No, why would it be the Golden Visa application?
It’s talking about citizenship applications
Don’t listen to the people that just copy paste ChatGPT. They don’t know what they’re talking about - if they did, they wouldn’t use chatgpt for everything
3 Likes
got this via email from Golden Portugal. Apparently this proposal has been withdrawn by the government.
Why Was the Proposal Withdrawn?
During the debate, the Government acknowledged constitutional limits.
The Prime Minister issued a pointed warning to Chega’s leader, stressing that:
“The line that cannot be crossed is the Constitution. None of us can pass an unconstitutional law. That means no loss of nationality, and no automatic revocations that violate the Constitution.”
Two Key Reasons for Concern
1. Warning from the President
As reported in last week’s Friday Briefing, President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa (also a Constitutional expert and law professor) made clear that once the final legislation reaches him, he will carefully assess any potential constitutional issues. He noted there may be provisions raising serious doubts, saying it would be better to have a definitive ruling from the Constitutional Court to avoid differing interpretations in lower courts.
2. Legal Opinion from Constitutional Experts
The journal Expresso reported that Jorge Miranda, often called the “father” of Portugal’s current Constitution, together with law expert Rui Tavares Lanceiro, issued a legal opinion on the proposals. Their analysis concluded that several elements restricting access to nationality and changing immigration rules raise constitutional doubts, while others are outright inadmissible under the Constitution.
What Are the Key Constitutional Concerns?
The legal opinion identified several issues:
Retroactivity
The government proposed retroactively applying the new nationality law changes to June 19, the day its program was approved in Parliament. Applications submitted from that date onward would be assessed under the new, stricter rules.
- The government justified this by citing a surge in applications seeking to benefit from the current law.
- However, the opinion argues this violates the constitutional ban on retroactive laws that limit rights and undermines Parliament’s authority, as any new laws should not be retroactive.
Residency Period Calculation
The proposed change would double the required residency time (from 5 to 7 years for Portuguese speaking countries and 10 years others) and start counting only from the date a residence permit is granted—not from when the application request is submitted.
- The legal opinion calls this “constitutionally inadmissible,” arguing it creates legal uncertainty, violates equality and human dignity, and unfairly shifts control to the state.
- For example, two people applying on the same day could face vastly different timelines without clear justification.
Note: This is also against the EU law of fairness and equality.
Family Reunification and Access to Justice
The government seeks to restrict urgent legal actions against AIMA (the immigration agency).
- The opinion argues this represents an unjustified restriction on access to justice and violates the principle of proportionality.
- The backlog of administrative cases is seen as the result of AIMA’s own dysfunction, not citizens exercising their fundamental rights.
Revocation of Citizenship
The legal opinion warns that revoking citizenship from naturalized individuals on legal grounds could violate equality, proportionality, and universality.
- It introduces an unconstitutional distinction between citizens by birth (who can never lose citizenship) and those who acquired it through naturalization.
What Happens Next?
- At the committee stage, political parties will debate the proposed amendments, seek consensus, and put forward an alternative proposal.
- The Government intends for these discussions to be short but thorough, aiming for a final text that “unites the country and makes it more cohesive.”
- Any new amended proposal will need to be voted in Parliament again.
- If approved, the bills will then go to the President, who has 20 days to review them. For the Nationality Law, President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa may request a Constitutional Court ruling.
As of today:
- No date has been set for the next discussion.
- There are no new developments affecting the normal processing of ongoing or new applications under the current law.
2 Likes
ChatGPT output again?
“Proposal withdrawn”… 
5 Likes
https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/COM/XVIILeg/1CACDLG/Paginas/Composicao.aspx
Click the name, click ‘Enviar e-mail’, complete the form (with attachments if you prefer)…
3 Likes
I got this via email from Golden Portugal (sent to everyone on their mailing list) - if they got this from ChatGPT I don’t know…
1 Like
Important to note that indeed the EU will be watching these changes very carefully for fairness and legality.
So, there are actually two hurdles to clear.
António Costa, the former Prime Minister of Portugal, is now the President of the European Council.
1 Like
In the plenary discussion in Parliament, the Government withdrew the proposal from a plenary vote with the objective of trying to seek consensus at the Commission level. The objective is that what eventually comes for a vote the next time in plenary, has the highest chance of passing.
Hence the discussion tomorrow at the Commission level. This was not a “withdrawal” of the draft amendment, but a withdrawal from the vote, in plenary.
After the Commission debates, and agrees on a consensus, it still needs to be drafted to represent the consensus - or to reflect the passages where there is consensus - and go to Plenary for a vote.
1 Like
Saying the proposal was withdrawn yesterday would have been an AI hallucination.
Discussion has just been punted to September though: Parlamento. Discussão sobre Lei da Nacionalidade é estendida até setembro
3 Likes