I have created a thread about the petitions in the private lounge
I could kiss them. As a 2022 applicant (no card in sight) I still wouldn’t make the 2026 nationality deadline, but if they could soften the law for everyone else I think it would make it a little easier for us who are still getting screwed to fight the unfairness in court. Hope we see this law get bargained down.
1 Like
what happens if:
- they pass the law in parliament
- it goes to el presidente, while he is deliberating, the budget fails, parliament disolves into care taker mode and election date is set
- president vetos, and send it back to parliament, after the parliament has dissolved…what happens? the bill is dead right?
4 Likes
In 2022, the new government elected was sworn in on Mar 30, 5 months after the fail of the budget. It’s worth noting that the president’s term is coming to an end and there will be an election next January. I’m pretty sure most of us here can pass the Portuguese civics test if there will be one. 
5 Likes
If they add a transition period until December 2026 but revoke the law counting time from date of application provision, then the transition period is a moot point because it would actually create a worse situation for most people.
I don’t see how removing a law that counts time from date of application is not retroactive and unconstitutional. As of right now, if I applied in 2022 I have almost 4 years of time counted. Once such a law is passed counting time from first card, I have only 1 year of time counted. So, I retroactively have 3 years of time counted taken away.
6 Likes
The proposed amendment by PS, translated:
Article 5
Temporal Application
1 – The amendments introduced by this law to Law No. 37/81, of October 3,
apply to procedures required after its entry into force, without prejudice to the provisions of the following paragraphs.
2 – The previous wording of Law No. 37/81, of October 3, applies to persons
who meet the requirements for granting and acquiring nationality provided for therein on the date this law enters into force and who begin the respective procedure by December 31, 2026.
3 – The periods of residence in national territory provided for in the previous wording of paragraph b) of No. 1 and No. 7 of article 6 of Law No. 37/81, of October 3, apply to the naturalization procedures of holders and applicants of residence permits on the date of entry into force of this law.
So, this amendment would protect all current GV applicants, even the ones without a residence card - at least for the 5 year timeline, if not the citizenship exams.
But note that PSD does not need PS to pass this bill, as Chega will support them. So this amendment is unlikely to be included.
3 Likes
I’m not even sure what this legalese means, does it mean that its not retroactive for current permit holders/applicants as you say?
Here is what I think it means:
-
if you qualify for citizenship as of the date of entry into force of the new law, you are grandfathered as long as you apply for citizenship by Dec 31, 2026.
-
The time counting of the old law applies to anyone who applied for a residence permit as of the entry into force of the new law.
There a a number of “gotchas” in this that in my opinion make it somewhat worthless of anyone of doesn’t meet requirements for nationality as of the date of entry into force of the new law. This does not help most people all that much.
Really? Wouldn’t this cover current permit holders and applicants though? What gotchas do you think there would be with this?
1 Like
[quote=“AussieInExile, post:1094, topic:71816”]
What gotchas do you think there would be with this? [/quote]
Here is one example:
There will most certainly be a citizenship test element in the new law. Think about how difficult it is to schedule a CIPLE test now. It can take months, or even years. They haven’t even started to develop the test which can also take a year to develop the test and the process for taking and scoring the test.
3 Likes
This still would be better than waiting 10 years right? Surely you would take the “least bad” option over 10 years.
2 Likes
Sure, but it’s a false choice. We shouldn’t be forced to accept the least bad constitutional violation.
7 Likes
Great point! I doubt anyone has thought through that. It is almost certain to create another major bottle neck to apply for the citizenship in time.
1 Like
I disagree. By my reading, the PS proposal includes the type of grandfathering clause everyone has been asking for.
Paragraph 2 is a short grandfathering rule for people who already meet the current eligibility requirements. They can apply under the old law until 31 Dec 2026. That covers some ARI holders but also other routes to acquiring nationality (birth, adoption, marriage etc) that aren’t relevant to most of us.
Paragraph 3 specifically deals with paths that require a residence period like ours. This is a safeguard for anyone who already holds or has applied for a residence permit when the new law starts. They’ll keep counting time under the current five year rule.
In other words, paragraph 2 protects those already eligible on the start date, and paragraph 3 protects all current residence permit holders and applicants waiting for approval.
And to underline the point, it explicitly names “holders and applicants of residence permits.” That means anyone who has already submitted a residence permit application but hasn’t received approval yet. That’s effectively everyone in this community.
PS also said publicly this week that it continues to support counting residence time from the date of application rather than approval.
The question now of course is how much influence that proposal will have during the debate, but at least there’s finally a concrete counterproposal that aligns with the needs of ARI applicants.
14 Likes
I’m not sure how you’d land on that conclusion. It doesn’t match the wording of the proposal.
Paragraph 3 isn’t about counting time between an application and approval, and it doesn’t mention new 7 or 10 year requirements.
The phrase “previous wording” refers to the old residence time rule of five years, not the new one. The word “apply” decides which residence period governs, not how to measure it.
3 is specifically naming Article 6.1 of the nationality law (Law No. 37/81)
3 – The periods of residence in national territory provided for in the previous wording of paragraph b) of No. 1 and No. 7 of article 6 of Law No. 37/81, of October 3, apply to the naturalization procedures of holders and applicants of residence permits on the date of entry into force of this law.
This is Law No. 37/81: https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/legislacao-consolidada/lei/1981-34536975
What is paragraph b) of No. 1 of article 6?
b) Residirem legalmente no território português há pelo menos cinco anos;
In other words this amendment would preserve the 5 years for people who already applied for or received residence cards.
3 Likes
Sorry, I confused myself. Then what’s the point of paragraph 2 as everyone would get grandfathered? Maybe those who already reached 5 years no longer need to meet those extra requirements like taking the citizenship test?
Yes, the meaning of #2 is to allow anyone already eligible for citizenship under the old law to be able to actually make a citizenship application within the grace period of 1 year.
Paragraph 3 would only grandfather the 5 years. It doesn’t grandfather counting time from application, or not needing an extra cultural test, etc.
(from ChatGPT) during the specialty stage (when adding/removing clauses or voting on competing amendments), approval is by simple majority of the votes cast in the body that’s voting (committee or, if avocada, the Plenary).
The good news is absolute majority is only needed when voting on the final law. For specific clauses like these even if IL votes with Chega (69 deputies in total), all other left leaning parties would vote yes (70 deputies in total). If PSD.CDS-PP (91 deputies in total) abstains these clauses could be added.