Golden Visa
Portugal’s Socialists File Seven-Year Citizenship Compromise to Protect Golden Visa Investors
Portugal’s Socialist Party (PS) filed formal amendments to the government’s citizenship reform bill on October 17, 2025, proposing a three-tier framework that would establish a seven-year naturalization timeline for most foreigners while protecting existing Golden Visa investors from retroactive rule changes.
Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms, and Guarantees Committee (CACDLG) received the 13-page legislative package, representing the first concrete counterproposal to the center-right government’s June plan to double naturalization periods from five to ten years.
The first version of the government’s proposal appeared in June, followed by intense debate over its constitutionality, according to Madalena Monteiro, founder of Liberty Legal. The government paused discussions during the summer and returned to the topic in October, she notes.
The PS framed its intervention as necessary to ensure nationality law “continues to be an instrument to value Portuguese citizenship and for the integration of citizens from other countries who have settled in Portugal and intend to become active members of the national community,” according to the party’s explanatory memorandum.
Image:Pedro Delgado Alves
The document emphasizes protecting “the special ties we have with the EU and with the CPLP” while preventing rules that would “excessively prolong naturalization over time.”
The amendments now enter committee review, where CACDLG members will conduct three readings before any floor vote can occur.
The bill requires a strong majority of favourable votes (116 out of 230 MPs) for passage because nationality law is an organic law under the Constitution, as Monteiro explains, a threshold that forces cross-party negotiation regardless of government coalition strength.
Nationals of Portuguese-speaking countries (CPLP) and European Union member states would qualify for citizenship after “at least five years” of legal residence, while nationals of other countries would face “seven years” under Article 6, Section 1(b) of the proposed text.
The government’s original ten-year requirement disappears entirely from the Socialist version.
The party justifies differentiated treatment by arguing the need to “ensure that the specificity of citizens of the CPLP and the EU have adequate treatment” in law, given “the existence of more intense connections with Portugal,” according to its policy memorandum.
Image:Madalena Monteiro
Monteiro characterizes the PS submission as “a good and reasonable proposal” that “keeps predictability for long-term residents and avoids punishing people for delays that are not their fault.”
She describes it as “much more balanced and legally coherent” than competing versions, noting it “sets five years for CPLP and EU nationals, and seven years for all other foreigners, instead of ten.”
Portugal issued a record 4,987 Golden Visas in 2024, marking a 72% increase from 2023, according to data from the Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum (AIMA).
The transitional provisions would create a grandfathering window extending through December 31, 2026.
Monteiro explains that “the PS amendments include a grandfathering clause, so anyone who already meets the current requirements when the new law enters into force can still apply under the existing five-year rule until December 31, 2026.”
Article 5, Section 2 maintains that “the previous wording of Law No. 37/81 of October 3 applies to people who meet the requirements for attribution and acquisition of nationality provided therein on the date of entry into force of this law and who initiate the respective procedure by December 31, 2026.”
Monteiro adds that “those who already hold or have applied for residence permits will continue counting time under the old regime.”
The PS memorandum explicitly states its intent to establish “rules for entry into force and production of effects that are not only not retroactive, but also protect the legitimate expectations of applicants.”
This formulation directly addresses the constitutional concerns Jorge Miranda raised in his September legal opinion.
Miranda, who was part of the committee that wrote Portugal’s 1976 democratic constitution and remains its most authoritative interpreter nearly five decades later. His 82-page legal opinion, commissioned by Liberty Legal on behalf of Golden Visa investors, argued that retroactive application of citizenship rule changes would violate fundamental legal certainty principles enshrined in the Constitution he authored.
Monteiro emphasizes the opinion’s impact on the legislative process. “Miranda’s legal opinion was a major driver behind Parliament’s decision to push back the debate,” she explains. “It has had a very important effect on how parties are now approaching the reform.”
She predicted that “parties will reach an understanding that will basically compromise with all the proposals on the table” and that “the bill will not pass as it was proposed.”
Rodrigues Lima emphasized during her interview that the law would “definitely not be applicable retroactively” and advocated for “a safeguard clause in the law that can protect those clients that are already in the program.”
The PS proposal exceeds what Rodrigues Lima described as the industry’s hoped-for outcome.
She had suggested lawmakers might extend the seven-year CPLP timeline to existing residents or implement protective clauses, but the Socialist amendments would provide a full five-year pathway to preservation for current residence permit holders.
She explained that the framework would protect applicants who “applied knowing that the rules for the nationality law were specifically five years of residency at the time of the application,” addressing the legitimate expectations argument Miranda invoked.
Rodrigues Lima distinguished between immigration applications and citizenship filings, explaining that “immigration law and nationality law are two separate laws, so we cannot mix both concepts.”
She clarified that anyone with a citizenship application already pending receives automatic protection, noting that “if there is a client with a nationality application pending, of course that client specifically will be protected against any change in the nationality law, because there is a nationality application pending.”
Monteiro explains that “the PS text retains the existing counting mechanism, with one key safeguard: the citizenship clock starts after the 90-working-day legal deadline for residence-permit decisions, as long as the permit is eventually approved.” She emphasizes this “protects applicants, including Golden Visa investors, from excessive administrative delays.”
The government’s Social Democratic Party (PSD) has softened its initial draft in response to criticism, but Monteiro notes problems remain.
She explains that “the PSD, which leads the government, has softened its initial draft in response to heavy criticism,” with “the main focus of their revision on retroactive effects and how time toward citizenship is counted.”
The PSD version maintains a problematic counting mechanism, according to Monteiro. She warns that “the PSD’s version still changes the counting mechanism,” meaning “the citizenship clock only starts once the residence card is issued, which, given current AIMA delays, can easily take up to two years.”
She says this creates “time completely lost for residents who’ve already met all other requirements.”
The PS memorandum justifies maintaining the protective counting provision by explaining the need for “a criterion for counting the residence period that does not penalize those whose public administration delays affect” in obtaining residence permits.
The party notes that processing delays artificially inflate effective residency requirements, arguing the administrative backlog should not extend naturalization timelines beyond statutory periods.
She argues that “that distinction would create two classes of Portuguese citizens, something the Constitution simply does not allow.”
Chega has also proposed requiring both legal and physical residence, which Monteiro describes as adding “unnecessary rigidity” that would “penalize residents who already comply with Portuguese law.”
These provisions mirror aspects of the government’s original proposal that the PS amendments would eliminate.
New civic integration requirements appear across multiple sections of the PS text. Article 6, Section 1 would require that applicants demonstrate “sufficient knowledge of the Portuguese language” and “sufficient knowledge of the fundamental rights and duties inherent to Portuguese nationality and the political organization of the Portuguese State.”
Applicants would also need to “solemnly declare their adherence to the fundamental principles of the Democratic Rule of Law,” representing Portugal’s first formal democracy pledge requirement for naturalization.
Committee members can propose further amendments during the three-reading process, potentially adjusting the specific formulation of cultural knowledge tests or democratic values declarations before any plenary vote.
The PS text would introduce United Nations and European Union sanctions screening. Article 6, Section 1(h) would bar citizenship for those who “are subject to restrictive measures approved by the United Nations or the European Union, within the meaning of Law No. 97/2017 of August 23.”
This provision would apply retroactively even to grandfathered applications under Article 5, Section 2, which notes the new sanctions rule applies “however” to all filings. The Socialists would delete the government’s controversial nationality revocation provisions entirely.
Article 3 revokes “Section 5 of Article 6, subsections (b) and (d) of Section 1, Sections 3 and 4 of Article 9, and Sections 3 and 4 of Article 12-B of Law No. 37/81.”
This elimination would remove the government’s plan to create post-citizenship probationary periods, allowing nationality withdrawal for naturalized citizens who commit crimes within ten years of acquiring Portuguese status.
The PS memorandum explains that the government’s revocation framework “carries numerous risks” because it “can generate situations of inequality between national citizens” and presents an “excessively extensive catalogue of offenses that can result in loss of nationality, contrary to both national tradition on the matter and comparative law.”
The deletion reflects constitutional concerns about creating different classes of Portuguese citizens based on naturalization versus birth.
Image:André Ventura
Criminal record thresholds would remain at three years imprisonment. Article 6, Section 1(f) maintains the existing bar for those “convicted, with a final judicial decision, to a prison sentence equal to or exceeding three years,” rejecting the government’s proposal to exclude anyone with any criminal conviction regardless of sentence length.
The three-year standard aligns with European Union norms established under the Long-Term Residents Directive.
The PS justifies maintaining the three-year threshold as “a solution stabilized in the national legal order,” arguing the government’s proposal to bar anyone with any criminal record “treats serious offenses and situations that are mere criminal trifles in an unbalanced way,” according to the memorandum.
The PS’s seven-year compromise for new applicants would reduce this to five years with investment requirements plus two years of permanent residency without investment obligations or physical presence mandates. The Socialist amendments would preserve specialized naturalization routes with adjusted timelines.
Article 6, Section 7 would maintain the Sephardic Jewish descendants pathway but extend the requirement to “five years” from the previous two years, while Section 8 would allow ascendants of Portuguese-born citizens to naturalize after “six years” rather than five.
The proposal keeps the government’s elimination of certain heritage-based routes while moderating the residency increases for the remaining pathways.
The PS memorandum explains that “in cases where the law opts to maintain naturalization criteria that the government’s proposal eliminated, the residency periods are properly adapted to the new longer periods and to the application of new requirements.”
This formulation acknowledges that the party preserved some heritage routes the government sought to abolish, adjusting their timelines to align with the reformed framework’s overall structure.
Temporary naturalization windows appear in Article 5-A, allowing applications through December 31, 2027, for specific categories.
Section 2 would permit citizenship for individuals born in Portugal whose parents resided there “regardless of legal status” at birth, provided the applicant has lived in Portugal “for at least five years.”
Section 3 would create a pathway for people who lost Portuguese nationality under post-1974 decolonization laws, along with their Portugal-born children.
The memorandum characterizes these temporary routes as “transitional regimes for acquisition of nationality for some categories of applicants,” specifically addressing “a still relevant set of members of the second generation of migrants” born in Portugal but lacking citizenship because their parents held no residence permits at birth.
The compressed schedule aligns with Rodrigues Lima’s observation that “the bill that was proposed by the government in June is going to be discussed in October, around the end of October.”
However, Monteiro notes timing uncertainties, explaining that “if the Assembly fails to vote before October 22, the discussion will probably roll over to January, because the state-budget calendar takes precedence.”
The political dynamics remain uncertain. Monteiro observes that “the next step is to see whether the PSD chooses to work with Chega to approve their version, or instead cooperates with the PS to reach a more moderate consensus.”
She notes it remains “uncertain how the PS will position itself politically, but it’s unlikely they’ll align with Chega on nationality matters.”
The plenary vote requires 116 votes in Portugal’s 230-seat Assembly of the Republic for passage. The PS holds 58 seats, the governing Democratic Alliance controls 91 seats, Chega, the anti-system far-right party, 60 seats, and smaller parties command the remaining 21 seats.
Image:Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa
This distribution means any successful bill needs agreement across at least three parliamentary groups, forcing substantive compromise regardless of which party authored the initial text.
Monteiro characterizes the situation as one where “the real question is whether there will be enough cross-party support to approve any version before the October 22 debate.”
The amendments would create what Miranda termed “diachronic equality” by treating similarly situated applicants identically, regardless of when naturalization occurs.
Miranda, through his legal opinion, argued the government’s original proposal violated this principle by changing rules for pending applications, a constitutional flaw the PS text would correct through comprehensive transitional protections.
Golden Visa investors with applications pending when the law takes effect would receive multiple safeguards. Article 5, Section 3 would preserve their five-year clocks, Article 15, Section 4 would protect them from administrative delays, and Article 5, Section 2 would allow those meeting old requirements to file through December 2026.
The layered protections exceed industry expectations and address the legitimate expectations doctrine Miranda invoked. Portugal’s 400,000 pending citizenship applications as of January 2025 would be processed under existing rules if the PS framework passes.
The amendments specify in Article 5, Section 1 that changes “apply to procedures requested after its entry into force,” making the cutoff date January 1, 2026, for application filing rather than application approval. This timing would protect the massive backlog from retroactive rule changes.
The Socialists would maintain Portugal’s compliance with the European Convention on Nationality by rejecting the expansion of citizenship revocation grounds.
Miranda’s constitutional analysis noted that creating different classes of Portuguese citizens after naturalization violates both constitutional principles and international obligations under Article 5(2) of the Convention.
The PS deletion of revocation provisions addresses this legal vulnerability that could have triggered challenges before the European Court of Human Rights. Biometric data collection would continue under Article 12-C, with fingerprints and facial images required “to verify compliance with the requirements provided for in this law.”
Image:Jorge Miranda
The PS proposal preserves this security measure from the government’s original text while adding that collected data “may be reused for the purposes provided for in Law No. 7/2007,” allowing integration with Portugal’s citizen card system. Family reunification rules would remain unchanged under the Socialist amendments.
The government’s proposal to impose two-year waiting periods before residents could bring relatives to Portugal does not appear in the PS text, suggesting this restriction failed to gain opposition support.
The omission aligns with the Constitutional Court’s previous ruling against limiting family reunification protections.
Minor naturalization pathways would receive modest adjustments. Article 6, Section 2 maintains that children born in Portugal to foreign parents could acquire citizenship if “one of the parents resides legally in national territory for at least one year,” reducing the government’s proposed requirement while preserving parental residency conditions.
The framework balances jus soli and jus sanguinis principles in Portugal’s mixed nationality system.
The PS memorandum explains that for birth-based nationality, the proposal “requires legal residence of one of the parents for one year,” shortening the government’s suggested period while maintaining the principle that mere birth on Portuguese soil does not automatically confer citizenship without parental connection to the country.
The PS proposal would achieve both outcomes, implementing comprehensive safeguards for current applicants while cutting the proposed timeline from ten to seven years for future filers.
Her prediction that “our belief is that that exemption will also be applicable to clients that have immigration pending applications” materializes in Article 5, Section 3’s explicit protection for residence authorization holders.
The amendments would preserve Portugal’s attractiveness for investors who prioritize residency over citizenship.
The Golden Visa grants permanent residency after five years, regardless of naturalization timelines, and permanent residents enjoy nearly identical rights to citizens except voting and holding elected office.
Rodrigues Lima noted that permanent residency requires no ongoing investment and imposes no relocation mandates, making it “quite attractive” even without immediate citizenship access.
Legislative timing creates urgency for investors considering Portugal’s program. Anyone filing for residence authorization before January 1, 2026, would lock in the five-year citizenship pathway regardless of when they actually naturalize.
Image:Assembly of the Portuguese Republic
The Socialist amendments represent Portugal’s latest attempt to balance immigration control with investor attraction.
Cabinet Minister António Leitão Amaro had described the government’s reforms as “essential changes for the times in which we live” and characterized them as addressing “the requirement of an effective connection, of belonging to the national community,” according to statements accompanying the June proposal.
The PS approach accepts these objectives while moderating implementation to protect legal certainty.
The government sought restrictive measures to appease the far-right Chega party, which emerged as the main opposition force demanding immigration controls.
The Socialists crafted a middle path that would tighten requirements modestly while protecting legal certainty and investor confidence, potentially drawing support from centrist parties needed to reach the two-thirds threshold.
Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee will conduct three readings and a detailed review before any floor vote can occur.
Each reading allows members to propose amendments, debate provisions, and hear expert testimony, a process that typically extends several weeks. CACDLG members can propose amendments during each reading, potentially adjusting residency periods, transitional provisions, or civic integration requirements.
The committee must issue a report recommending approval, rejection, or amendment before the bill reaches the plenary floor for debate.
Monteiro expects similar presidential action on nationality reform. She notes that “regardless of which text passes, I fully expect the President to refer the law to the Constitutional Court,” explaining that “several articles, especially those on revocation powers and residence definitions, are constitutionally sensitive.”
Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the president has three options within 20 days of receiving the bill: sign it into law, exercise his veto power to return it to Parliament for reconsideration, or request a priori constitutional review from the Constitutional Court.
The president retains authority under Article 278 of the Constitution to seek similar review for any approved nationality legislation before signing it into law.
If he signs the approved bill, Portugal will publish the new rules in the official gazette, the Diário da República, and implementation would begin on January 1, 2026.
If he vetoes the legislation, Parliament can override the veto with an absolute majority vote but must wait 30 days before doing so.
If he refers the bill to the Constitutional Court, the court has 25 days to rule on constitutionality, potentially delaying implementation beyond the January target date.
Monteiro views constitutional review as beneficial, noting that “constitutional review gives me hope that the final outcome will be balanced, fair, and legally sound, safeguarding the rights of long-term residents and investors who trusted Portugal’s framework.”
The January 1, 2026, effective date remains achievable but requires swift legislative action and executive approval within the next 11 weeks.
Any extended committee debate, plenary amendments requiring multiple votes, or presidential referral to the Constitutional Court could push implementation into early 2026, extending the grandfathering window for investors considering Portugal’s Golden Visa program.
Those delaying applications until after that date would face the new seven-year standard, creating a six-week window for prospective investors to decide.
The PS proposal distinguishes between immigration law and nationality law in ways that would protect investor expectations.
The amendments’ transitional provisions would operationalize this distinction by grandfathering residence permit holders into the old citizenship framework while implementing new rules prospectively.
Current Golden Visa holders and anyone who files for residence authorization before January 1, 2026, would receive full five-year pathway protection.
Those who file after that date without existing residence permits would face the new seven-year timeline for non-CPLP/EU nationals but avoid the government’s proposed decade-long wait.
in IMI Daily
Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms, and Guarantees Committee (CACDLG) received the 13-page legislative package, representing the first concrete counterproposal to the center-right government’s June plan to double naturalization periods from five to ten years.
The first version of the government’s proposal appeared in June, followed by intense debate over its constitutionality, according to Madalena Monteiro, founder of Liberty Legal. The government paused discussions during the summer and returned to the topic in October, she notes.
The PS framed its intervention as necessary to ensure nationality law “continues to be an instrument to value Portuguese citizenship and for the integration of citizens from other countries who have settled in Portugal and intend to become active members of the national community,” according to the party’s explanatory memorandum.
Image:Pedro Delgado Alves
The document emphasizes protecting “the special ties we have with the EU and with the CPLP” while preventing rules that would “excessively prolong naturalization over time.”
The amendments now enter committee review, where CACDLG members will conduct three readings before any floor vote can occur.
The bill requires a strong majority of favourable votes (116 out of 230 MPs) for passage because nationality law is an organic law under the Constitution, as Monteiro explains, a threshold that forces cross-party negotiation regardless of government coalition strength.
Five Years for CPLP and EU Nationals, Seven for Others
The PS amendments would establish distinct residency requirements based on national origin and application timing.Nationals of Portuguese-speaking countries (CPLP) and European Union member states would qualify for citizenship after “at least five years” of legal residence, while nationals of other countries would face “seven years” under Article 6, Section 1(b) of the proposed text.
The government’s original ten-year requirement disappears entirely from the Socialist version.
The party justifies differentiated treatment by arguing the need to “ensure that the specificity of citizens of the CPLP and the EU have adequate treatment” in law, given “the existence of more intense connections with Portugal,” according to its policy memorandum.
Image:Madalena Monteiro
Monteiro characterizes the PS submission as “a good and reasonable proposal” that “keeps predictability for long-term residents and avoids punishing people for delays that are not their fault.”
She describes it as “much more balanced and legally coherent” than competing versions, noting it “sets five years for CPLP and EU nationals, and seven years for all other foreigners, instead of ten.”
Comprehensive Protections for Current Golden Visa Holders
Current Golden Visa holders and applicants would receive comprehensive protection through Article 5, Section 3, which specifies that “the residence periods in national territory provided for in the previous wording of Article 6, Section 1(b) and Section 7” would apply to anyone holding or having applied for residence authorization when the law takes effect.Portugal issued a record 4,987 Golden Visas in 2024, marking a 72% increase from 2023, according to data from the Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum (AIMA).
The transitional provisions would create a grandfathering window extending through December 31, 2026.
Monteiro explains that “the PS amendments include a grandfathering clause, so anyone who already meets the current requirements when the new law enters into force can still apply under the existing five-year rule until December 31, 2026.”
Article 5, Section 2 maintains that “the previous wording of Law No. 37/81 of October 3 applies to people who meet the requirements for attribution and acquisition of nationality provided therein on the date of entry into force of this law and who initiate the respective procedure by December 31, 2026.”
Monteiro adds that “those who already hold or have applied for residence permits will continue counting time under the old regime.”
The PS memorandum explicitly states its intent to establish “rules for entry into force and production of effects that are not only not retroactive, but also protect the legitimate expectations of applicants.”
This formulation directly addresses the constitutional concerns Jorge Miranda raised in his September legal opinion.
Miranda, who was part of the committee that wrote Portugal’s 1976 democratic constitution and remains its most authoritative interpreter nearly five decades later. His 82-page legal opinion, commissioned by Liberty Legal on behalf of Golden Visa investors, argued that retroactive application of citizenship rule changes would violate fundamental legal certainty principles enshrined in the Constitution he authored.
Monteiro emphasizes the opinion’s impact on the legislative process. “Miranda’s legal opinion was a major driver behind Parliament’s decision to push back the debate,” she explains. “It has had a very important effect on how parties are now approaching the reform.”
Industry Experts See Compromise Materializing
Vanessa Rodrigues Lima, co-founder and partner at Prime Legal, anticipated this compromise structure at IMI Connect Rome in October.She predicted that “parties will reach an understanding that will basically compromise with all the proposals on the table” and that “the bill will not pass as it was proposed.”
Rodrigues Lima emphasized during her interview that the law would “definitely not be applicable retroactively” and advocated for “a safeguard clause in the law that can protect those clients that are already in the program.”
The PS proposal exceeds what Rodrigues Lima described as the industry’s hoped-for outcome.
She had suggested lawmakers might extend the seven-year CPLP timeline to existing residents or implement protective clauses, but the Socialist amendments would provide a full five-year pathway to preservation for current residence permit holders.
She explained that the framework would protect applicants who “applied knowing that the rules for the nationality law were specifically five years of residency at the time of the application,” addressing the legitimate expectations argument Miranda invoked.
Rodrigues Lima distinguished between immigration applications and citizenship filings, explaining that “immigration law and nationality law are two separate laws, so we cannot mix both concepts.”
She clarified that anyone with a citizenship application already pending receives automatic protection, noting that “if there is a client with a nationality application pending, of course that client specifically will be protected against any change in the nationality law, because there is a nationality application pending.”
Administrative Delay Protection Becomes Central Battleground
Article 15, Section 4, represents a critical divergence from the government’s position. The PS text would preserve the administrative delay rule, specifying that residence time counts from “the moment when the legally established deadline for granting residence authorization has been exceeded, provided it is subsequently approved.”Monteiro explains that “the PS text retains the existing counting mechanism, with one key safeguard: the citizenship clock starts after the 90-working-day legal deadline for residence-permit decisions, as long as the permit is eventually approved.” She emphasizes this “protects applicants, including Golden Visa investors, from excessive administrative delays.”
The government’s Social Democratic Party (PSD) has softened its initial draft in response to criticism, but Monteiro notes problems remain.
She explains that “the PSD, which leads the government, has softened its initial draft in response to heavy criticism,” with “the main focus of their revision on retroactive effects and how time toward citizenship is counted.”
The PSD version maintains a problematic counting mechanism, according to Monteiro. She warns that “the PSD’s version still changes the counting mechanism,” meaning “the citizenship clock only starts once the residence card is issued, which, given current AIMA delays, can easily take up to two years.”
She says this creates “time completely lost for residents who’ve already met all other requirements.”
The PS memorandum justifies maintaining the protective counting provision by explaining the need for “a criterion for counting the residence period that does not penalize those whose public administration delays affect” in obtaining residence permits.
The party notes that processing delays artificially inflate effective residency requirements, arguing the administrative backlog should not extend naturalization timelines beyond statutory periods.
Chega Proposal Faces Constitutional Obstacles
The far-right Chega party has proposed measures that legal experts consider constitutionally problematic. Monteiro characterizes Chega’s proposal as “one of the most constitutionally complex, because it allows for revocation of citizenship for serious crimes but applies only to naturalized citizens.”She argues that “that distinction would create two classes of Portuguese citizens, something the Constitution simply does not allow.”
Chega has also proposed requiring both legal and physical residence, which Monteiro describes as adding “unnecessary rigidity” that would “penalize residents who already comply with Portuguese law.”
These provisions mirror aspects of the government’s original proposal that the PS amendments would eliminate.
New civic integration requirements appear across multiple sections of the PS text. Article 6, Section 1 would require that applicants demonstrate “sufficient knowledge of the Portuguese language” and “sufficient knowledge of the fundamental rights and duties inherent to Portuguese nationality and the political organization of the Portuguese State.”
Applicants would also need to “solemnly declare their adherence to the fundamental principles of the Democratic Rule of Law,” representing Portugal’s first formal democracy pledge requirement for naturalization.
Committee members can propose further amendments during the three-reading process, potentially adjusting the specific formulation of cultural knowledge tests or democratic values declarations before any plenary vote.
The PS text would introduce United Nations and European Union sanctions screening. Article 6, Section 1(h) would bar citizenship for those who “are subject to restrictive measures approved by the United Nations or the European Union, within the meaning of Law No. 97/2017 of August 23.”
This provision would apply retroactively even to grandfathered applications under Article 5, Section 2, which notes the new sanctions rule applies “however” to all filings. The Socialists would delete the government’s controversial nationality revocation provisions entirely.
Article 3 revokes “Section 5 of Article 6, subsections (b) and (d) of Section 1, Sections 3 and 4 of Article 9, and Sections 3 and 4 of Article 12-B of Law No. 37/81.”
This elimination would remove the government’s plan to create post-citizenship probationary periods, allowing nationality withdrawal for naturalized citizens who commit crimes within ten years of acquiring Portuguese status.
The PS memorandum explains that the government’s revocation framework “carries numerous risks” because it “can generate situations of inequality between national citizens” and presents an “excessively extensive catalogue of offenses that can result in loss of nationality, contrary to both national tradition on the matter and comparative law.”
The deletion reflects constitutional concerns about creating different classes of Portuguese citizens based on naturalization versus birth.
Image:André Ventura
Criminal record thresholds would remain at three years imprisonment. Article 6, Section 1(f) maintains the existing bar for those “convicted, with a final judicial decision, to a prison sentence equal to or exceeding three years,” rejecting the government’s proposal to exclude anyone with any criminal conviction regardless of sentence length.
The three-year standard aligns with European Union norms established under the Long-Term Residents Directive.
The PS justifies maintaining the three-year threshold as “a solution stabilized in the national legal order,” arguing the government’s proposal to bar anyone with any criminal record “treats serious offenses and situations that are mere criminal trifles in an unbalanced way,” according to the memorandum.
The PS’s seven-year compromise for new applicants would reduce this to five years with investment requirements plus two years of permanent residency without investment obligations or physical presence mandates. The Socialist amendments would preserve specialized naturalization routes with adjusted timelines.
Article 6, Section 7 would maintain the Sephardic Jewish descendants pathway but extend the requirement to “five years” from the previous two years, while Section 8 would allow ascendants of Portuguese-born citizens to naturalize after “six years” rather than five.
The proposal keeps the government’s elimination of certain heritage-based routes while moderating the residency increases for the remaining pathways.
The PS memorandum explains that “in cases where the law opts to maintain naturalization criteria that the government’s proposal eliminated, the residency periods are properly adapted to the new longer periods and to the application of new requirements.”
This formulation acknowledges that the party preserved some heritage routes the government sought to abolish, adjusting their timelines to align with the reformed framework’s overall structure.
Temporary naturalization windows appear in Article 5-A, allowing applications through December 31, 2027, for specific categories.
Section 2 would permit citizenship for individuals born in Portugal whose parents resided there “regardless of legal status” at birth, provided the applicant has lived in Portugal “for at least five years.”
Section 3 would create a pathway for people who lost Portuguese nationality under post-1974 decolonization laws, along with their Portugal-born children.
The memorandum characterizes these temporary routes as “transitional regimes for acquisition of nationality for some categories of applicants,” specifically addressing “a still relevant set of members of the second generation of migrants” born in Portugal but lacking citizenship because their parents held no residence permits at birth.
Legislative Timeline
The proposed entry into force date falls on January 1, 2026, according to Article 7. This timeline gives the government, Parliament, and President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa 11 weeks to negotiate, amend, approve, and promulgate the legislation before implementation.The compressed schedule aligns with Rodrigues Lima’s observation that “the bill that was proposed by the government in June is going to be discussed in October, around the end of October.”
However, Monteiro notes timing uncertainties, explaining that “if the Assembly fails to vote before October 22, the discussion will probably roll over to January, because the state-budget calendar takes precedence.”
The political dynamics remain uncertain. Monteiro observes that “the next step is to see whether the PSD chooses to work with Chega to approve their version, or instead cooperates with the PS to reach a more moderate consensus.”
She notes it remains “uncertain how the PS will position itself politically, but it’s unlikely they’ll align with Chega on nationality matters.”
The plenary vote requires 116 votes in Portugal’s 230-seat Assembly of the Republic for passage. The PS holds 58 seats, the governing Democratic Alliance controls 91 seats, Chega, the anti-system far-right party, 60 seats, and smaller parties command the remaining 21 seats.
Image:Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa
This distribution means any successful bill needs agreement across at least three parliamentary groups, forcing substantive compromise regardless of which party authored the initial text.
Monteiro characterizes the situation as one where “the real question is whether there will be enough cross-party support to approve any version before the October 22 debate.”
The amendments would create what Miranda termed “diachronic equality” by treating similarly situated applicants identically, regardless of when naturalization occurs.
Miranda, through his legal opinion, argued the government’s original proposal violated this principle by changing rules for pending applications, a constitutional flaw the PS text would correct through comprehensive transitional protections.
Golden Visa investors with applications pending when the law takes effect would receive multiple safeguards. Article 5, Section 3 would preserve their five-year clocks, Article 15, Section 4 would protect them from administrative delays, and Article 5, Section 2 would allow those meeting old requirements to file through December 2026.
The layered protections exceed industry expectations and address the legitimate expectations doctrine Miranda invoked. Portugal’s 400,000 pending citizenship applications as of January 2025 would be processed under existing rules if the PS framework passes.
The amendments specify in Article 5, Section 1 that changes “apply to procedures requested after its entry into force,” making the cutoff date January 1, 2026, for application filing rather than application approval. This timing would protect the massive backlog from retroactive rule changes.
The Socialists would maintain Portugal’s compliance with the European Convention on Nationality by rejecting the expansion of citizenship revocation grounds.
Miranda’s constitutional analysis noted that creating different classes of Portuguese citizens after naturalization violates both constitutional principles and international obligations under Article 5(2) of the Convention.
The PS deletion of revocation provisions addresses this legal vulnerability that could have triggered challenges before the European Court of Human Rights. Biometric data collection would continue under Article 12-C, with fingerprints and facial images required “to verify compliance with the requirements provided for in this law.”
Image:Jorge Miranda
The PS proposal preserves this security measure from the government’s original text while adding that collected data “may be reused for the purposes provided for in Law No. 7/2007,” allowing integration with Portugal’s citizen card system. Family reunification rules would remain unchanged under the Socialist amendments.
The government’s proposal to impose two-year waiting periods before residents could bring relatives to Portugal does not appear in the PS text, suggesting this restriction failed to gain opposition support.
The omission aligns with the Constitutional Court’s previous ruling against limiting family reunification protections.
Minor naturalization pathways would receive modest adjustments. Article 6, Section 2 maintains that children born in Portugal to foreign parents could acquire citizenship if “one of the parents resides legally in national territory for at least one year,” reducing the government’s proposed requirement while preserving parental residency conditions.
The framework balances jus soli and jus sanguinis principles in Portugal’s mixed nationality system.
The PS memorandum explains that for birth-based nationality, the proposal “requires legal residence of one of the parents for one year,” shortening the government’s suggested period while maintaining the principle that mere birth on Portuguese soil does not automatically confer citizenship without parental connection to the country.
Implications for Golden Visa Investors
Rodrigues Lima’s assessment that lawmakers would “compromise adding a safeguard clause in the law or reduce the proposed period of residency” proves prescient.The PS proposal would achieve both outcomes, implementing comprehensive safeguards for current applicants while cutting the proposed timeline from ten to seven years for future filers.
Her prediction that “our belief is that that exemption will also be applicable to clients that have immigration pending applications” materializes in Article 5, Section 3’s explicit protection for residence authorization holders.
The amendments would preserve Portugal’s attractiveness for investors who prioritize residency over citizenship.
The Golden Visa grants permanent residency after five years, regardless of naturalization timelines, and permanent residents enjoy nearly identical rights to citizens except voting and holding elected office.
Rodrigues Lima noted that permanent residency requires no ongoing investment and imposes no relocation mandates, making it “quite attractive” even without immediate citizenship access.
Legislative timing creates urgency for investors considering Portugal’s program. Anyone filing for residence authorization before January 1, 2026, would lock in the five-year citizenship pathway regardless of when they actually naturalize.
Image:Assembly of the Portuguese Republic
The Socialist amendments represent Portugal’s latest attempt to balance immigration control with investor attraction.
Cabinet Minister António Leitão Amaro had described the government’s reforms as “essential changes for the times in which we live” and characterized them as addressing “the requirement of an effective connection, of belonging to the national community,” according to statements accompanying the June proposal.
The PS approach accepts these objectives while moderating implementation to protect legal certainty.
The government sought restrictive measures to appease the far-right Chega party, which emerged as the main opposition force demanding immigration controls.
The Socialists crafted a middle path that would tighten requirements modestly while protecting legal certainty and investor confidence, potentially drawing support from centrist parties needed to reach the two-thirds threshold.
Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee will conduct three readings and a detailed review before any floor vote can occur.
Each reading allows members to propose amendments, debate provisions, and hear expert testimony, a process that typically extends several weeks. CACDLG members can propose amendments during each reading, potentially adjusting residency periods, transitional provisions, or civic integration requirements.
The committee must issue a report recommending approval, rejection, or amendment before the bill reaches the plenary floor for debate.
Presidential Review Expected Regardless of Outcome
President Rebelo de Sousa’s role becomes critical if Parliament approves any version of the citizenship reforms. The president previously referred family reunification restrictions to the Constitutional Court for a priori review, and the court ruled those provisions unconstitutional.Monteiro expects similar presidential action on nationality reform. She notes that “regardless of which text passes, I fully expect the President to refer the law to the Constitutional Court,” explaining that “several articles, especially those on revocation powers and residence definitions, are constitutionally sensitive.”
Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the president has three options within 20 days of receiving the bill: sign it into law, exercise his veto power to return it to Parliament for reconsideration, or request a priori constitutional review from the Constitutional Court.
The president retains authority under Article 278 of the Constitution to seek similar review for any approved nationality legislation before signing it into law.
If he signs the approved bill, Portugal will publish the new rules in the official gazette, the Diário da República, and implementation would begin on January 1, 2026.
If he vetoes the legislation, Parliament can override the veto with an absolute majority vote but must wait 30 days before doing so.
If he refers the bill to the Constitutional Court, the court has 25 days to rule on constitutionality, potentially delaying implementation beyond the January target date.
Monteiro views constitutional review as beneficial, noting that “constitutional review gives me hope that the final outcome will be balanced, fair, and legally sound, safeguarding the rights of long-term residents and investors who trusted Portugal’s framework.”
The January 1, 2026, effective date remains achievable but requires swift legislative action and executive approval within the next 11 weeks.
Any extended committee debate, plenary amendments requiring multiple votes, or presidential referral to the Constitutional Court could push implementation into early 2026, extending the grandfathering window for investors considering Portugal’s Golden Visa program.
Those delaying applications until after that date would face the new seven-year standard, creating a six-week window for prospective investors to decide.
The PS proposal distinguishes between immigration law and nationality law in ways that would protect investor expectations.
The amendments’ transitional provisions would operationalize this distinction by grandfathering residence permit holders into the old citizenship framework while implementing new rules prospectively.
Current Golden Visa holders and anyone who files for residence authorization before January 1, 2026, would receive full five-year pathway protection.
Those who file after that date without existing residence permits would face the new seven-year timeline for non-CPLP/EU nationals but avoid the government’s proposed decade-long wait.
in IMI Daily
 |
Alexandre Cunha Elias
Business Development Director
|
Alexandre is a seasoned professional with over 20 years of experience in business development, investor relations, relationship management, and sales. He has held senior positions at Kreab, Liberdade Capital, and OFI Asset Management, and was the founder of ACE Consulting, a real estate investment advisory firm.
