GV holders will not get special treatment if the period is increased to 10 years because they are not special in the naturalisation law. I would say that there is a priviledge (quite unique, yes) of GV holder to apply for citizenship EQUALLY to all other residents even if he does not live in Portugal. This priviledge is not cancelled. Moreover, one could easily claim that GV holder will be hit much less not more. It is just the money you need to hold another 5 years. If they require GV holder to spend more time in the country for citizenship which was not required before and undermine that priviledge, it looks much more retroactive. I think in that case we may easily go to court if the previous years would not be grandfatherred. And we should win. However, I am less confident in the positive outcome if future years which were not accumulated yet would be not coverred by this grandfather clause. You could not change how much time you spend in the pass, but could start to spend more time in the future if you want citizenship. It would be also more difficult if they require cumulative time for the whole 7 or 10 years, whatever. However, it will look retroactive for those who are close to the application.
Does anyone know if there is a way to apply for exceptional citizenship in Portugal based on special contributions to the country like being a gifted sportsman or such-like, waiving any residence/contagem de tempo requirements?
If there is such a way, would the application still go to AIMA?
Yes according to this
Interesting that I could not find any reference to this option in the Nationality Law, but I suppose it is supposed to remain undocumented on purpose 
Chegaâs been full-on with disinformation w.r.t. family reunification since Monday, no doubt pushing the AD to âdo something.â
Government does not foresee the entry of 500 thousand more immigrants, contrary to what Ventura says
André Ventura and Folha Nacional attribute to the Government the claim that 500,000 more immigrants will enter Portugal. The allegations are false and the Government has already denied them.
âŠaccording to the publicationâs calculations, the number of foreigners who will arrive with the reunification will exceed half a million
AndrĂ© Ventura, leader of Chega⊠adding them to the total number of immigrants officially recognized by the Portuguese government. In a video published on TikTok by Ricardo FradĂŁo, he says: âThe country cannot handle having 2.1 or 2.3 or 2.5 million immigrantsâ, which implies adding these 500 thousand to the current number : one million and 600 thousand.
A petition calling for an end to family reunification was created and circulated by AndrĂ© Ventura , and already has around 50,000 signatures at the time of publication of this article [11-June '25]. âWe hereby request the Assembly of the Republic to repeal the legislation that regulates family reunification, suspending its application for a minimum period of eight years,â reads the introductory note to the petition.
Ok, I have sent a polite letter for now to a few people including the PM and the major party leaders regarding this recent governmentâs âproposalâ.
Letâs see what they come back withâŠ
Will we able to see the full draft now since it should have been sent to the Assembly by now?
âFour-yearâ Government Programme delivered a couple hours ago. Reporters are still digesting it, but hereâs Jornal de NotĂciasâ early view on the immigration section.
At first take, todayâs proposals seem more about âstudyingâ and âconsideringâ changes - no hard edicts just yet. Iâm sure richer news stories will follow soon.
- In the document, the Government advocates the ârevision of the nationality law, extending the minimum period of residence and effective presence in national territory, eliminating the possibility of illegal stay being considered for the purposes of counting this time, and ensuring that those who acquire Portuguese nationality have an effective relationship and successful integration in the countryâ. [This was already in the AD election programme, so not new. Maybe some hope that new limits on âcounting this timeâ would only apply to illegal stays? - i.e. not killing off the counting of time spent âwaiting for application?â]
- The deadline for obtaining citizenship is currently five years, counting from the moment the immigrant has a residence permit [not sure if thatâs JNâs interpretation, or in todayâs Programme], below the EU average. The Democratic Alliance (AD) government has been discussing the possibility of extending this time, which could be doubled. [unclear what todayâs Programme actually says - wait for a better news article!]
- consider introducing criteria for progress in the Portuguese language when renewing certain types of residence permits [NB. residence renewals - not nationality where language is required today!]
Adding another news coverage:
It remains to be clarified how long the Government intends to set the period of residence in Portugal to be eligible for Portuguese nationality. DN knows that the intention is to increase it from five to ten years, but the programme does not confirm this. On the other hand, it is confirmed once again that the law approved and sanctioned to count the waiting time for a residence permit as the five years provided for in the current law will not be regulated .
(Iâve deleted my earlier comment by mistake)
in what universe extending the investment period from 5 years to 10 years (as a consequence) is not a retroactive change!
Thatâs a good point, and one of those that makes ARI residents being different from any other residents when it comes to legitimate expectations of the eligibility for naturalization. If a follow-up to my letter would be required I will make sure to include this in the rationale.
I commend your timely action. Too many talk but donât take affirmative steps to advance the cause.
Yeah, it went to 20+ selected individuals who I thought may have some influence on the matter.
If you have any other suggestions please share!
I would be in support of starting a GoFundMe account to buy a billboard near Lisboa Portela Airport with the following message:
PORTUGAL DOES NOT RESPECT INVESTORS.
Nationality law changes insult Golden Visa investors.
VOTE NO to retroactive residency changes.
Keep in mind that these are just vague proposals in the state budget at this time.
11 of the 225 pages relate to immigration, so it is a serious topic for the government.
With the MH changes in 2023, the Costa government came out with serious retroactive changes but did back down under pressure. In this case, I donât think they will totally back down, but it may be possible to carve out some exceptions and to allow for a transitional period of 1 year. It would also make sense to ask them to exclude GV from the 10 year residence period (keeping it at 5 years) since we were specifically promised this (whether expressly or by implication).
ThatÂșs what I went for in the first place, as it being the most obvious âlow hanging fruitâ.
Just a quick look at the cuurent official AIMA website promoting citizenship law âna atual redaçaoâ = 5 years, and them calling us âARI beneficiariesâ. Not âparticipantsâ, âapplicantsâ or âresident permit holdersâ but specifically âbeneficiariesâ, which means we paid for certain benefits as advertized as are therefore entitled to receive them in full and on time even in the eyes of AIMA.
https://aima.gov.pt/pt/viver/autorizacao-de-residencia-para-investimento-art-90-o-a
I, of course, agree. I have read some GV people in this forum argue that this language works against us. I disagree with this catastrophizing. I read this language to mean we are beneficiaries of the ability to apply for citizenship under the law in its present/current form at the time of our GV application (5 years as you note). If the government had wanted it to mean something different they could have noted that as âin its current form as of the time of application for citizenshipâ or âin its current form as amended from time to time.â The current wording only works in our favour.
A quick AI based search revealed the following (albeit not strictly based on Portuguese law):
The phrase âin its current formâ is often employed in legal contexts to specify that a provision or document should be interpreted as it exists at the time of drafting, without considering subsequent amendments or changes.
I am not positive that the government even wants to screw investors. Just 2 weeks ago they said the opposite. This language guaranteeing that GVs have the right to apply for citizenship based on the law at the time of their GV application may be enough to convince the government to grant an exception within any proposed legislation. It allows them to save face, and protects the legitimate expectations of investors.
Alas I think there is zero chance that the government wonât pursue retroactivity generally. But keep in mind that GVs are not the target here. And as noted above, we are subject to special rules which should exempt us from this. We need to find ways to communicate this to the appropriate persons.
Thereâs a WhatsApp group called âGolden Visa Petitionâ and I can tell you that many lawyers and agents are planning on there to have a zoom discussion about how to talk to the government about this. They know that retroactive changes (and even future changes) will have a major effect on the marketability of the GV.
So they will certainly be lobbying in our favor, probably more than we can do individually.
Agreed that leveraging people who already have contacts/influence with the PT government is likely the most productive use of our efforts. So let the fund managers, GV advisors, lawyers, etc. that you deal with know youâre very concerned about measures that will harm your investment in PT - and othersâ future investment in PT!
vs⊠do I think that the head of Investors Portugal (association of ~30 venture capital managers) read the email I sent her out of the blue last month? Doubt it.
How do you know it is a positive influence?
Anyway, relying on some middle man to deal with the authorities on your behalf is fine, but it works only to a certain extent, and cannot be seen as a total replacement of the direct communication.
Eg if I did not communicate with AIMA directly on multiple occasions (in addition to what my lawyers did), I would most likely still be waiting for my first card.
There are plenty of other examples here where people directly engage with AIMA and get their appointments because they pestered AIMA daily. If they were only waiting for their lawyer to âdo somethingâ, well⊠you know the answer.