This is a great idea. I would be willing to contribute towards this.
I did the same with my lawyer and investment company as well.
1 Like
Thank you for doing that - I want to do the same. Is it possible for you to list all the email addresses here so we can just cut and paste them, and then more people could contact them?
1 Like
Good idea. Count me in, and please contact me directly for anything should this move forward.
1 Like
@Andrew77 - @tommigun did the work for you. The names and electronic “mail boxes” are all here. there are 25 of them https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/COM/XVIILeg/1CACDLG/Paginas/Composicao.aspx
4 Likes
I assume when people count 25 they are only counting the “Effective” members.
In my emails to them tonight, some of the Effectives’ bios have no email addresses on them - at least not anymore! - e.g.
- Idalina Durães (CH): https://www.parlamento.pt/DeputadoGP/Paginas/Biografia.aspx?BID=8551
- Filipe Sousa (JPP): https://www.parlamento.pt/DeputadoGP/Paginas/Biografia.aspx?BID=9378
1 Like
This is part of a reply from our law firm: 
(emphasis is my own)
“We also know that, as is often the case, these processes tend to begin with the worst-case scenarios in view, though ultimately justice and good sense have consistently prevailed.”
In this case “justice” is likely a reference to lawsuits. This point was also made in another conversation with them. If the new legislation is passed in this worst-case scenario like we are preparing for, then another summons/lawsuit/challenge in the courts will be the way forward.
Ugh. 
1 Like
They want to make their fees as always, this is actually the best case scenario for them.
2 Likes
Seems that the doubling of residency requirements has been stripped out of the text proposal that was voted on today.
“But a component of the proposed legislation, which aimed to restrict access to Portuguese nationality, will undergo additional parliamentary debate amid doubts about the legality of certain provisions.”
Nonetheless, Other aspects of the proposed immigration changes that were approved by parliament include:
- Work visas : Now limited to highly qualified immigrants only.
- Family reunification: Rules made more stringent with two years residency required.
- Brazilians: Lose the special rule that allowed them to regularize residency after arrival. (e.g. Manifestation of Interest scheme abolished).
- Police unit: New national police unit created to tackle illegal immigration and deport irregular migrants.
Now it’s off to President Marcelo for his approval.
8 Likes
Malta has published draft law of amendments to its nationality law following the CJEU ruling.
You can follow the discussion in this thread:
3 Likes
I don’t think we were expecting those nasty bits to be voted on today anyway. As your second paragraph probably alludes to, the contentious stuff was punted out to September last week.
4 Likes
Yes, because there are two separate laws, so the Foreigners Law was voted on today, while the Nationality Law will be debated until September.
It’s kind of both good and bad that the Foreigners Law has been voted, as it contains an explicit exception for ARI. So we will need to add this as a precedent to our arguments for inserting the ARI exception into the Nationality Law as well!
4 Likes
Which part does explicitly state this exception?
Article 98.2, see my mega-post 
from 3 days ago:
1 Like
I have reviewed the changes to the law. For Highly qualified workers, Golden visa and EU Blue card holders the family reunification is now restricted to family members who have already entered legally and are currently present in Portugal and living with the main applicant and who depend on him or her. You are getting a preferential treatment but still it’s worse than before.
For other residence holders, the rules are after a 2-year waiting period the family reunification is restricted to family members who are now outside of Portugal and who have cohabited with the main applicant in another country prior to arriving in Portugal regardless of any other facts.
It seems the provision is targeted at Indian applicants who normally do not cohabit with their spouses prior to marriage. It’s hard to say but IMHO the law is not compliant with EU laws and regulations, which strongly protect family reunification rights.
1 Like
Yes, it looks like the cohabitation and dependency are the new restrictions. But how would they apply the meaning of the word ‘dependency’ to a spouse? Which by the way contradicts with the conditions of the ARI-RF permit itself that allows professional activity.
I am also not sure what interpretation they intended for the ‘entry and presence in Portugal’, as obviously anyone attending the AIMA appointment would meet both criteria.
Right, because the current wording of clause 3 of Article 98 essentially means that any person who is single at the time of entering Portugal on a permit would be prohibited from bringing a spouse from outside Portugal not only within 2 years but ever (as they would not be able to prove cohabitation in a foreign country by definition)..
Just wait 15 years and become a citizen, then your spouse can join?
1 Like
After AIMA issues their card 5 years after that, of course.
It seems to me that the intent is clear, to restrict family reunification to actual dependent family members who lived with the applicant, and not brothers, uncles, grandparents, nephews, etc who barely know the applicant. This is necessary to prevent claiming distant dependents who, in fact, has little if any relationship with the applicant.
As for Golden visa, I am not sure this applies at all to family members that have already obtained residence card as they have already reunified. It only applies to new applicants and even then I think it has to be interpreted to mean that ARI are entitled to family reunification as long as the family members were present at the time of biometrics. Already the ARI applicant has to prove that family members are dependent. Maybe not, but we will see.
I can’t make any opinion whether it is constitutional. I defer to Lifedreamer for such an opinion.
2 Likes