Can’t access the page. Is the link still valid?
Here’s his profile and posts: https://www.linkedin.com/in/antonioleitaoamaro/
No comments on his 
yet… I am so very, very tempted 
So honoured to e-meet him! Will definitely add him to my LinkedIn profile! 
The more I hear comments like his and the more I read these sanewashing articles on how stable and wonderful and perfect everything is in PT, the more likely it is that my head will actually explode. 
4 Likes
is ALA on instagram? i’m feeling some trolling coming on
1 Like
Some articles on which points PS is asking the Constitutional Court to review. The most relevant one for us is the lack of transitional regime:
“Verificamos uma violação da proteção da confiança quanto à alteração das regras de contagem dos prazos de residência legal, à ausência de regime transitório…
…falta de um regime transitório para quem já está perto de cumprir os atuais requisitos…
3 Likes
Am I correct that they haven’t actually sent the request yet? My Google translate is imprecise. It looks like they made a press announcement that they are going to, but will actually send it tomorrow.
Yes I think the request will be sent tomorrow. The only thing that happened today is that they made a more detailed announcement of what they plan to include in the request (8 points including lack of transitional regime, vs last week they only mentioned 2 and didn’t mention transition specifically, just lack of counting from application)
4 Likes
Well, no guarantees the Court will rule in our favor, but it is hopeful that they will at least be asked to look at it. I guess we’ll have a little more information when we see the actual text of the request. Thank you for posting the articles!
ChatGPT summary of the 8 points.
ChatGPT summary
For the decree altering the Penal Code (loss of nationality as a penalty), the PS points to:
- violation of the principle of equality and universality
- violation of proportionality
- violation of prohibition on perpetual or indeterminate penalties
For the decree changing the Nationality Law, they indicate seven norms they consider unconstitutional, including
- lack of transitional provisions
- changes to how residence periods are counted (legal residence)
- revocation of protections for stateless persons or minors
- lowering the criminal-penalty threshold from 3 years to 2 years as a naturalisation bar
- indeterminacy in rules on opposition to nationality
3 Likes
Thanks for these @anonymous69
At the bottom of the Observador piece it says:
A maioria com que estes dois decretos foram aprovados, superior a dois terços dos deputados, permite a sua eventual confirmação mesmo que venham a ser declaradas inconstitucionalidades pelo Tribunal Constitucional.
Deepl translation:
The majority with which these two decrees were approved, more than two-thirds of the members of parliament, allows for their eventual confirmation even if they are declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.
I think they mean if the TC bounces it back to Parliament, and Parliament votes on it again with the same numbers as before - right?
So I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is that’s never happened before. Why?
Because the court also has the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional even after they’re promulgated. So passing and promulgating a law that the court has already ruled unconstitutional, is just asking for it to be struck down.
But with 2/3 of parliament PSD and Chega can technically change the constitution. Then they can argue their law is no longer unconstitutional. This is a longer process however and might get more backlash if they start removing fundamental constitutional rights.
5 Likes
I think that would come down to how much PSD truly believes in this anti immigration kick, versus to what extent its political theatre to avoid losing votes to Chega. I doubt they believe in this enough to want to amend the constitution over it.
7 Likes
Got the following reply from his excellency’s (President’s) office regarding my letter for recent immigration law impacting golden visa holders:
Blockquote Exmo(a). Senhor(a)
Encarrega-me Sua Excelência o Presidente da República de acusar a receção e agradecer a comunicação remetida por V. Exa., que mereceu a melhor atenção desta Casa Civil.
Tratando-se de um assunto que não se enquadra no âmbito das competências constitucionais de Sua Excelência o Presidente da República, cumpre-me informar V. Exa. de que, nesta data, foi enviada cópia da mesma ao Gabinete de Sua Excelência o Primeiro-Ministro.
Com os melhores cumprimentos,
Any thoughts?
1 Like
Interesting, I just got the same response without the second paragraph referring the matter to the PM.
I always assume if I write to a political person that it will be received by an under-under-staff member who will read it, put a check in the “doesn’t like thus-and-such policy” box, send me a vaguely appropriate form letter, and then provide a tabulation to the politician at the end of the day with X number of approving letters and Y number of displeased letters. My goal is honestly just to add one more tick mark to the tabulation.
2 Likes
How long ago did you send your note to the President?
The ball wasn’t in his court until around 29-Oct - if your letter was before then it was still a matter for the PM/Government.
But if the President’s office was replying in November, then yes it’s with him (although he’s now waiting for the PS’s appeal to the TC). Feel free to reply, keep the pressure on, and raise the tally of objections 
I wrote to him on 28th October. I can’t reply to that email.
I got the same “His Excellency the President of the Republic has instructed me to acknowledge receipt and thank you for the communication forwarded by Your Excellency, which has received the utmost attention from this Civil House.” for a letter I wrote on the 11th of November.
I’m still holding out hope our concerns won’t be ignored by the court. 
Glad at least someone read it. Was mostly expecting it to get ignored looking at the current state of affairs at their immigration offices.
2 Likes