There is also a general email for the Committee itself, but I suggest writing to the named deputies as this may increase the chance of your email being read (i.e. sending it to 25 deputies instead of 1 general email would in theory increase the success chance by x25 )
Here is some analysis by Diario Noticias Brasil of what passed committee yesterday and to be voted on the 16th. It mainly deals with pathways to enter Portugal via Job Search or CPLP.
GV is mentioned once in regard to different rules for family unification. May be an awkward translation:
Being outside the national territory after two years of housing with a residence permit may cause couples to have to be separated for at least two years . The exception is for gold visa applicants and for highly qualified ones. To this period of at least two years, there is an increase in the time of analysis of the request: nine months, triple the current 90 days . It is also expected that this nine-month period may be extended in “exceptional circumstances associated with the complexity of the application analysis”.
Is that just an acknowledgement that they never hit the 90 day mark anyway for spousal analysis and they are trying to prevent lawsuits based on that fact going forward? This does not seem to be a “favorable carveout” for GV since they seem to still be holding them to a 2 year reunification period?
thank you. I submitted 25 personalized emails last night. It only took ~40 mins and it felt like I was doing something about it. who knows if there is value in it, but it is important that they hear from us.
What conclusion do you reach? GV will not be moved to a 2 year reunification? (I mean in theory you would include spouse on the GV, but some choose not to)
With the push past 90 days and this below they seem to be trying to minimize our options in the courts.
It is also stated that the Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum (AIMA) will make the appointments “in accordance with its administrative capacity”. Regarding lawsuits “relating to AIMA’s decisions or omissions”, the new text of the legislation provides that “they will be proposed in the administrative courts through administrative actions in the form of a common procedure”. In practice, this means that it will not be an urgent process, as is currently the case .
The translation you quoted explicitly states that the new 2 year family unification rule will not apply to ARI and highly qualified residents. This was also announced in various news articles within the first few days of the debate.
For those who are considering writing to the president and deputies, do you think the following point to be communicated with them would make sense:
The ARI (Golden Visa) is not a traditional immigration program — it is a state-sponsored investment program that offered legal residency and the right to apply for citizenship after five years of compliance. That five-year path was a material term of the agreement. The reality is: we cannot exit our investment until we acquire Portuguese citizenship. If the timeline is now extended to 10 years or more — and if citizenship processing adds another 2 to 3 years — the total time horizon becomes 13 to 15 years. That is triple the length originally promised. In the private sector, such a retroactive change to a deal with retail investors would constitute a clear violation of contract and trust — potentially even fraud. The Portuguese government should be held to the same standard of good faith and legal consistency.
Your points are all very valid, but the tone might need to be lowered a notch. We can’t demand to be allowed into another society as it is not our right. However, we certainly can and should mention the legitimate expectations based on the promises of the GV Programme to as they were drafted at the time of our applications. That would be my recommendation.
I think that writing a great volume of technical legalistic material is not fruitful, unless you have an established trust relationship and your opinion has been solicited directly (very unlikely). Decision-makers in parliament have already heard all of these points from industry professionals lobbying behind the scenes.
The people who read constituent letters don’t invest the time to savor every word of an essay. They spend a few seconds skimming to get the flavor of the message, add one to a counter for gauging public sentiment about the relevant issue, and potentially reply with a boilerplate paragraph or two. Today some (higher profile) offices may even distill it through an AI, or even let AI handle the whole interaction.
When writing any message to a politician, I recommend being mindful of the attention time budget available: a few seconds.
humanize yourself–be a real person worthy of welcome
be polite, respectful, and appreciative
avoid negativity and a demanding tone
state your wishes clearly and succinctly, e.g.:
“Por favor, preserve o calendário de cinco anos para a naturalização de todos os residentes legais atuais e continue a contar a partir da data do pedido.” (Feel free to improve on my weak Portuguese.)
Section 1
3 reasons why ARI is a unique immigration category and must be protected from any adverse changes: 1.1. It’s the Portuguese government’s program specifically designed to attract direct foreign investments; it was designed with a particular set of requirements and benefits including the possibility to apply for citizenship under the Nationality Law “in its actual edition”, which were always (and still are today) advertized by the government’s own agencies i.e. formerly SEF and now AIMA, as well as by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
Nowhere else and for no other immigration category does AIMA advertize citizenship, except ARI!
1.2. Massive investments of more than 8.65B Euros to-date have been made by ARI applicants. Additional to that figure are approx. 470M Euros in processing fees (which alone are more than x10 times higher than any other category). This was part of the deal designed by the PT govt. in exchange for the package of benefits. The investments were made with the legitimate expectation of a 6-7 year horizon, based on the govt. own advertisement.
No other category is required to make investments!
(this reflects @Luvmhn‘s rationale above)
1.3. Huge processing delays experienced by ARI applicants when dealing with SEF/AIMA. Some applicants as we know are waiting 4+ years for the first card, while at the same time considered legal residents in Portugal (by Despacho n.º 12870-C/2021). Should Article 15(4) be revoked, then all those legitimate years of legal residence will be lost, only due to the faults of SEF/AIMA, but no fault of the ARI applicants.
Again, no other category has suffered such extreme delays!
Section 2
3 points on how / by what means ARI should be protected based on the legal framework in place (thanks to the research by @anon19331392):
Section 3
3 specific points as to what needs to be protected for ARI:
3.1. No retroactive changes to the Nationality Law in the part of the duration of legal residence required for the naturalization (currently 5 years as per number 1b) of Article 6 of Lei n.º 37/81, de 3 de outubro.) 3.2. No retroactive changes to the Nationality Law in the part of the counting of time period of the legal residence (currently counted from the initial application as per number 4 of Article 15 of Lei n.º 37/81, de 3 de outubro.) 3.3. Continuation of the right to family reunification (I believe for this part an exception for ARI has been already inserted in the proposal of the Foreigners Law (see page 6 of the PDF, clause 2 of Article 98) to be voted on July 16th - so if it comes to pass we should use it as the precedent in our favor and push for the other two exceptions/grandfathering).
And I agree with @PCERoman that when you add your personal story/color to your letter the wording should be toned down, so as to sound assertive and positive but not overly ‘demanding’ or ‘aggressive’ towards the addressees.
This is an important point to make, and one that may not have been considered by those who invested in open-end funds. If you’ve invested in a business, especially a business tied to a piece of real estate like a hotel, you need to be able to sell at a natural point of transition. If an investor is required to hang onto their share of a hotel for ten years or more, that has a material impact on the way that the business is forced to operate. It isn’t just that the investor can’t take out their money after 5 years, the government would be imposing undue burdens on the businesses themselves.
Many have raised valid concerns about our situation. However, sending emails or letters to lawmakers may have limited impact, as we don’t constitute a voting bloc for them. While officials are theoretically obliged to consider public correspondence, in practice, our communications often end up buried in bureaucratic archives for “future review.”
The ARI program was undeniably created as an economic lifeline during Portugal’s financial crisis when it was grouped with the PIIGS nations (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain). The initiative has successfully attracted substantial foreign capital relative to Portugal’s economy size. Importantly, Golden Visa holders generally don’t strain national resources - most don’t reside permanently in Portugal and consequently don’t utilize public healthcare, education, or social services. Yet we contribute significantly through renewal fees, taxes, and property investments.
The 5-year path to nationality wasn’t merely implied - it was actively promoted globally through roadshows, government statements, and official newspaper announcements when the program launched. The residency-to-nationality pipeline was always presented as an integrated package.
Rather than scattered individual appeals, I propose a more strategic approach: engaging Sr. Jorge Miranda, a respected constitutional scholar, to analyze our legal position and publish a professional assessment. With collective funding and a substantial number of participant signatures, we could commission a thorough legal opinion that might actually prompt parliamentary attention. This wouldn’t require massive resources - just organized coordination among affected parties.
A well-researched article from a authoritative figure like Prof. Miranda could:
Legally validate our interpretation of the program’s original terms
Does anyone’s law firm / fund manager / contacts in Portugal have access to the full opinion Jorge Miranda already wrote? The one behind the Expresso article.
I wonder whether the constitutionality of the 5-to-10-years issue was discussed in the opinion, but just wasn’t eye catching enough to have made it to the Expresso summary.
Liberty Legal already commissioned a related study regarding the constitutionality of the entire legislative package. I presume you intend for this to focus more specifically on the nexus of reasonable expectations established by official and private parties.
He has a halo of impeccable integrity, as the respected father of the Portuguese constitution. I can’t assess whether it would taint his aura if we paid him; it would be useful to structure the contract in a manner that safeguards his reputation of objectivity.
It may also backfire if he concludes that the ARI community does not have a legitimate claim. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to proceed in two phases: commission a private investigation as phase 1, and proceed with a public report for phase 2 if phase 1 yields a favorable opinion.
Madaleine Monteiro’s phone number and email address are readily available; perhaps it would be worthwhile to coordinate this with her, since she has commissioned his services for similar projects more than once. Her interests and ours dovetail, and her perspective on this project would probably be helpful.
Just a minor correction…
I think it is double, not triple.
There was/is no garantee at all that you could get passport in 5 years.
In fact, you are eligible to apply for citizenship after 5 years of GV.
Adding with 2-3 years of citizenship’s processing time, it will eventually take 7-8 years.
Under newly proposed law, this 7-8 years might become 13-15 years which is just DOUBLED !!!
if it is the case, then triple is a very humble assumption. My dependents needed 4.5 years to get the first card. If counting starts from a date written on card, then he needs to wait 10 years (without any hiccup during renewal) and 2-3 more years for the citizenship’s process. The total time will surely reach 17-18 years.
)