After hinting at alignment with Chega, the government yesterday followed PS advice and sent nationality and immigration bills to committee without a vote. Why the U-turn? What does it mean?
Eerily, at the same time Portugal is debating birth versus naturalization citizenship, Trump’s U.S. has already decided that naturalized American citizens are invalid.
One wonders how this is factoring in Chega’s strategy and alignment with America’s current authoritarian bent.
You think? Among (many) targeted others is Zohran Kwame Mamdani … the Ugandan-born, U.S. naturalized citizen, who emerged as the NYC Democratic primary winner.
From TheHill.com: “Trump on Tuesday also threatened to investigate Mamdani’s immigration status and arrest him if he stood in the way of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s raids in the city.”
Besides, what are “serious crimes” when they are “Trumped” up?!
Thank you for the clarity in this article. Even tho it's not clear what will happen, it's helpful to know what is happening in the process. The similarities between the Chega talking points and the right wing in the US around immigration are oddly consistent. Plus the comments on forums like Reddit and Facebook have shifted from dispassionate to outrage and vitriol in only a few months. Has there been any investigation into third parties attempting to influence the elections in Portugal to shift them to the right? The comments on forums these days seem to have very little if any correlation to the Portuguese people I meet in daily life who are by most counts kind, compassionate, welcoming people.
In relation to retrospective implementation on nationality application, I would like to mention that, I do understand that visa rules and citizenship laws are governed by separate bodies in Portugal, and obtaining a visa doesn’t automatically lock in the then-current citizenship rules. However, the legal concept of legitimate expectation doesn’t necessarily rely on formal guarantees — it arises when individuals make significant life decisions based on the legal framework and policies in force at the time.
When people entered into long-term visa schemes like the D7 or the Golden Visa, their decisions were clearly influenced by the published pathways towards citizenship — including the five-year residency requirement as it stood. They invested their time, money, and futures based on that framework.
Changing the rules mid-way — especially without transitional arrangements — could indeed be argued as arbitrary and potentially unfair. It effectively shifts the goalposts for people who were already on track to qualify under the previous law. This raises serious questions around principles of natural justice, including fairness and protection from arbitrary state action.
This issue likely has precedents. There is undoubtedly a wealth of case law demonstrating how retrospective changes to immigration or nationality pathways have been successfully challenged on similar ground
It will be interesting to see whether, if this amendment is signed into law without transitional protections, it could withstand legal scrutiny, both domestically and perhaps even in European courts, given the broader context of EU legal principles around fairness and proportionality.
> I do understand that visa rules and citizenship laws are governed by separate bodies in Portugal, and obtaining a visa doesn’t automatically lock in the then-current citizenship rules.
Why would anyone write that? It is astonishingly self-defeating, and I also 100% disagree.
The government promised a right to apply for citizenship under the terms of the referenced law, as written, on its official immigration web sites:
Changing the rules in mid-stream was not an explicit or implied part of the deal. People made great changes in their lives, tying up their life savings for a measured length of time, investing in learning a new language, and often uprooting to live in a new country. CMVM-approved (government-approved) closed-end ARI investment funds defined their sunset dates based on the citizenship timeline. Extending the time horizon by 5 to 10 years would be disastrous. If ongoing renewals were even possible, the extravagant costs for fees and lawyers would double. There was no "some day, eventually, maybe, subject to change or cancellation" clause.
Appreciating the comment below. It speaks for me. And, the present social and political movements in Portugal and the US appear to be good examples of the karmic consequences that ultimately fall upon colonial and imperial legacies. Muito Obrigado.
Thoughtful and clear analysis of this situation. Obrigado.
So grateful for your analyses!
Eerily, at the same time Portugal is debating birth versus naturalization citizenship, Trump’s U.S. has already decided that naturalized American citizens are invalid.
One wonders how this is factoring in Chega’s strategy and alignment with America’s current authoritarian bent.
Nor true. Naturalized citizens are valid if you have not committed serious crimes
You think? Among (many) targeted others is Zohran Kwame Mamdani … the Ugandan-born, U.S. naturalized citizen, who emerged as the NYC Democratic primary winner.
From TheHill.com: “Trump on Tuesday also threatened to investigate Mamdani’s immigration status and arrest him if he stood in the way of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s raids in the city.”
Besides, what are “serious crimes” when they are “Trumped” up?!
Thank you for this analysis
Your analysis is so helpful, thank you! As a US policy analyst I was like: how can this be constitutional? Answer: it’s absolutely not.
Dear Portuguese politicians,
You don’t change the rules of the match when the players are already on the field,.
That’s un-sportsmanlike behavior.
Thank you 🙏
Thank you for the clarity in this article. Even tho it's not clear what will happen, it's helpful to know what is happening in the process. The similarities between the Chega talking points and the right wing in the US around immigration are oddly consistent. Plus the comments on forums like Reddit and Facebook have shifted from dispassionate to outrage and vitriol in only a few months. Has there been any investigation into third parties attempting to influence the elections in Portugal to shift them to the right? The comments on forums these days seem to have very little if any correlation to the Portuguese people I meet in daily life who are by most counts kind, compassionate, welcoming people.
Obrigado for such a thoughtful analysis.
In relation to retrospective implementation on nationality application, I would like to mention that, I do understand that visa rules and citizenship laws are governed by separate bodies in Portugal, and obtaining a visa doesn’t automatically lock in the then-current citizenship rules. However, the legal concept of legitimate expectation doesn’t necessarily rely on formal guarantees — it arises when individuals make significant life decisions based on the legal framework and policies in force at the time.
When people entered into long-term visa schemes like the D7 or the Golden Visa, their decisions were clearly influenced by the published pathways towards citizenship — including the five-year residency requirement as it stood. They invested their time, money, and futures based on that framework.
Changing the rules mid-way — especially without transitional arrangements — could indeed be argued as arbitrary and potentially unfair. It effectively shifts the goalposts for people who were already on track to qualify under the previous law. This raises serious questions around principles of natural justice, including fairness and protection from arbitrary state action.
This issue likely has precedents. There is undoubtedly a wealth of case law demonstrating how retrospective changes to immigration or nationality pathways have been successfully challenged on similar ground
It will be interesting to see whether, if this amendment is signed into law without transitional protections, it could withstand legal scrutiny, both domestically and perhaps even in European courts, given the broader context of EU legal principles around fairness and proportionality.
> I do understand that visa rules and citizenship laws are governed by separate bodies in Portugal, and obtaining a visa doesn’t automatically lock in the then-current citizenship rules.
Why would anyone write that? It is astonishingly self-defeating, and I also 100% disagree.
The government promised a right to apply for citizenship under the terms of the referenced law, as written, on its official immigration web sites:
https://aima.gov.pt/pt/viver/autorizacao-de-residencia-para-investimento-art-90-o-a
https://arquivo.pt/wayback/20231215194613/https://imigrante.sef.pt/solicitar/residir/art90-a/
Changing the rules in mid-stream was not an explicit or implied part of the deal. People made great changes in their lives, tying up their life savings for a measured length of time, investing in learning a new language, and often uprooting to live in a new country. CMVM-approved (government-approved) closed-end ARI investment funds defined their sunset dates based on the citizenship timeline. Extending the time horizon by 5 to 10 years would be disastrous. If ongoing renewals were even possible, the extravagant costs for fees and lawyers would double. There was no "some day, eventually, maybe, subject to change or cancellation" clause.
Appreciating the comment below. It speaks for me. And, the present social and political movements in Portugal and the US appear to be good examples of the karmic consequences that ultimately fall upon colonial and imperial legacies. Muito Obrigado.