Or the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees could declare it unconstitutional, just as it did last time. Chega looks tough for voicing the will of its base, and PS can just watch it unfold without getting its hands dirty.
As someone whoâs gone to law school, albeit not in Portugal, let me say there are three types of writing:
- Analysis: where you are supposed to look at a hypothetical legal question from both sides and objectively evaluate your legal position. Think of your lawyerâs email response when you ask âdo I have a case in courtâ.
- Advocacy: there are other peopleâs cases whose rulings are in âyourâ favor (I.e.you want the judges to apply the same reasoning to your case), and cases you want to distinguish (e.g. âeven though precedent case A and my case are similar in ways XXX, they are really very different because of YYY, so your honor should rule differently in my caseâ).
- Laymen repeating legal jargons (âact based on existing lawâ, âjustified expectationsâ), thinking just because they have grievances, they have legal reasoning as well and a 100% case in court.
What I wrote to Sr. Leal is how I write a 5-minute outline for both 1.analysis and 2.advocacy. In this case, Iâm not qualified to practice law in a jurisdiction/subject, but I am aware of a high profile case, so I ask specific questions on how the Courtâs previous legal reasoning and conclusions apply to the facts in my case. I want a Portuguese lawyerâs analysis (at this stage at least), to understand whether I have a strong case, weak case, or 50-50 case.
I know Portugal is not a common law country. Both common law and civil law countries consider precedents when it comes to interpreting their constitutions, to not appear arbitrary and capricious.
- If what I wrote is âcluelessâ, then you should be confident in your arguments winning, and there is no reason to feel threatened by a civil discussion. Better yet, answer my questions, have a debate on legal merits with me, and win.
- if you accuse me of âadvocating for the enemyâ, what I put together (with just one precedent case from a Google search, not even proper legal research) can be done by a first-year Portuguese lawyer in 5 minutes as well. There are always precedents one doesnât like, but good luck trying to hide them from the judges.
I donât know you. You decide whether you are a layman repeating your grievances, trying to soothe your soul and kid yourself into thinking you have a strong case in court. You can also shut me up and only allow voices who agree with your âlegal reasoningââsurely the echo chamber will further soothe the soul.
But alas, itâs a public forum.
6 Likes
I am advocating for my interests You should be doing the same. I fully realize that there are arguments against my position. I donât ignore them here out of naivety. Rather, I ignore them because its not a good approach to undermine your own position. As you note, this is a public forum.
4 Likes
I will be advocating my interest in court (type 2 writing per my previous post) if Iâm convinced that I have a strong case by a proper analysis (type 1 writing per my previous post).
I think we agree that we should advocate for our reliance interest and air our grievances in front of politicians, who have a lower bar than judges.
Where we disagree is that in my book, wishful thinking and laymen repeating legal jargons (type 3 writing per my previous post) should not pretend to be a proper legal analysis (type 1), and I do not agree that asking for the latter (instead of embracing your type 3 writing) âundermines my own positionâ or is in anyway âcluelessâ. Getting a proper legal analysis (type 1) before going to court to use your advocacy power (type 2) is always a good approach.
People start and join cults too, and there is plenty of wishful thinking in the world, so please you do you. I do not âundermine my own positionâ. The only thing I undermine is stupidity and bad legal reasoning.
3 Likes
No one said it was a proper legal analysis. You seem obsessed with the idea that we need a full debate from users, including all arguments for and against our positions. That isnât realistic, nor is it wise.
Look, I donât need or want to engage with you any further. I have already contributed at least 2 relevant Wikis on this site for the benefit of all members. Whether those wikis are useful or valuable is for users here to decide. The point is, I am trying to make a positive difference for people. By the same token, users can also decide whether you promoting arguments why the government should be able to screw us are equally valuable.
2 Likes
I believe any Sephardic Jew who already filed their application before April 1 2024 was not affected by the changes.
Those who had not filed yet, had probably not filed any paperwork with the Portuguese government.
I think thatâs different from GV holders who invested money and filed paperwork with Portugal years ago to get a residence permit whose governing law said you can apply for citizenship after holding the investment 5 years.
2 Likes
Good Sir, I asked a lawyer a question on a public forum, and you engaged with me first as some sort of community police.
Your 2 wikis are very much appreciated. But does wearing this badge of honor make you feel empowered to prosecute others with religious zeal? And this instinct to call for mob justice to stamp out dissent?
Going back to one of my favourite exchanges on this forum:
Iâm sure you get plenty of âHear, hearâs for your âlegal opinionsâ, including from prospective 2025 GV applicants who get FOMOâed into PT GV, believing they would have a constitutional right to citizenship in 5 years if they jump in NOW.
Posts that vent (ânot what I signed up forâ), look at the bright side (âhope for the best while I enjoy this excellent green wineâ), or discuss lobbying arguments/strategies rarely lead to arguments on this forum, but anything that purports to be a legal opinion should be able to withstand challenges from any direction. You canât possibly expect to present a purported legal opinion, but then call for censorship (âstop advocating for the enemy!â) as soon as someone disagrees, without being able to have an intelligent conversation on the legal merits.
3 Likes
I think the proposed changes to citizenship law are about decreasing the attractiveness of the country to new immigrants who might move to Portugal, rather than decreasing the numbers already there acquiring citizenship. If you think about what really irks the right-wing populists everywhere - âimmigrantsâ, I suspect they are less concerned about those 1m existing immigrants getting their PT passport ( many may well then move to another EU country), than they are about more new immigrants moving to PT.
The idea that âyou shouldnât examine the arguments against your positionâ is insane lmao
If you ignore the potential arguments you will face, you will be unprepared when you face them!
5 Likes
Minister for the presidency AntĂłnio LeitĂŁo Amaro told journalists yesterday that ârevision of the nationality law will be included in the governmentâs programmeâ which is being finalised and will be sent to parliament tomorrow (Saturday).
2 Likes
A few thoughts and questions:
(1) How much impact does this have on ARIs with dependents on the application? If they are part of the application with the parents, is it under the family reunification scheme?
(2) This might impact people who did not put their dependents on the application. I seem to remember a thread where there was a debate whether it was best to include the dependents on the application or wait for the primary to get citizenship and then seek family reunification.
(3) I though Parliament was off for the summer. If I am right (a remote possibility, I will concede), wonât this just sit there?
I donât think they are targeting family of PT citizens.
They are targeting family of visa/permit holders.
So your spouseâs/childrenâs GVs might be more delayed but honestly those are already extremely delayed.
Based on what I have read, the government or various parties have 3 main priorities:
-increase residence required for citizenship to 10 years.
-revoke the law setting waiting time counted from application date.
-ban family reunification for 8 years
My understand is that in Portuguese law this refers to family of visa holders.
Family of EU citizens have rights under Article 15. For citizens of EU countries that arenât PT, their family membersâ rights are guaranteed by EU treaties. Portugal cannot refuse their family without first leaving the EU.
1 Like
Yes, I think you are correct.
Just an addition here, PT citizens and their families are also treated under the law for EU citizens in Portugal. The exact same legal framework applies for family reunification for families of PT citizens as well as families of EU citizens. Article 15 residence cards are issued to family members of PT citizens and even the same permanent residence cards are issued that say âFamily member of an EU citizenâ as well as the PR cards are 10 years validity as under Directive 2004/38/EC.
So the new government may change laws for residents who are non-citizens with regards to family reunification and they could potentially also change them for PT citizens but this would require them to split the law that currently applies to PT citizens because itâs still the same decree.
AntĂłnio LeitĂŁo Amaro told journalists, in the briefing of the Council of Ministers meeting, that the review of the nationality law âwill be included in the government programmeâ that is being finalised and will be sent to parliament on Saturday.
This is sure sounding like a rug pull is forthcoming. What a nice way to reward us for our years of patience.
2 Likes
It seems that it is targeting family unification and nothing has been touched regarding extending the years to apply for citizenship and/or the time of counting wait time for the the 5-year time period.
Thatâs mentioned in the article here:
LeitĂŁo Amaro emphasised that âthe need to review the nationality lawâ, including âthe extension of the deadlines and the counting timeâ
1 Like
HolyâŠWill the draft version be published on Saturday tho? At least we need to have a clue on their intentionâŠ