Portugal's Word Must Mean Something

There is a particular kind of disappointment reserved for those who believed in the rules — and then watched them change.

The new Nationality Law, promulgated on May 3, doubles the residency requirement for citizenship from five to ten years for most foreign nationals. On paper, a legislative adjustment. In practice, something far more consequential: a unilateral rewriting of the terms that thousands of families, investors, and professionals relied upon when they chose Portugal as their home.

This is not a debate about whether Portugal has the right to update its nationality framework. It does, and the legislature's discretion in this area is broad and legitimate. What is at issue is something different: how this change was made, and for whom it creates injustice.

The People This Law Ignores

We are not talking about abstractions. We are talking about tens of thousands of people who trusted Portugal's word — who invested their savings here, enrolled their children in Portuguese schools, learned the language, paid into social security, and built their lives around a legal framework the state actively promoted.

They did so on the basis of a five-year citizenship pathway that had been stable since 2018, itself a reduction from the six-year period that had been in place since 1981. Many of them were days, weeks, or months away from meeting the requirements when this law passed. With the new regime, and accounting for average processing times at AIMA, the realistic horizon for citizenship is not ten years. It is closer to sixteen.

This is not a side effect. It is the direct, foreseeable consequence of a legislative choice that simply did not reckon with the lived reality of foreign residents in Portugal.

A Problem the State Created — and Is Now Ignoring

There is a detail in this law that deserves particular attention, because it reveals the depth of the problem.

Parliament eliminated the provision — article 15/4 of the Nationality Law — that required time elapsed since a residency application was submitted to count toward the naturalization clock, even before AIMA issued a formal decision. That provision was not an accident. It was introduced deliberately by Parliament in 2024, precisely to prevent systemic administrative delays — first at SEF, then at AIMA — from being unfairly charged against applicants who were waiting, without fault, for the state to fulfil its own legal obligations.

That safeguard is now gone. And the context in which it has been removed makes its absence indefensible: in 2026, hundreds of thousands of processes remain pending at AIMA. Residency applications open since 2020 have no prospect of resolution for another two to three years. Cases that the law requires to be decided within 90 working days routinely stretch to six years.

The Minister of the Presidency acknowledged in a parliamentary hearing in late 2025 that Golden Visa applications had been deliberately deprioritised — set aside for last, by political decision. When the state admits to having managed thousands of processes according to discretionary, politically-defined criteria, and then presents the years of waiting that resulted as a problem of the applicant's own making, something has gone wrong. There is in this a disregard for the rule of law that should concern everyone — not only those directly affected.

What the President Said Is Not Enough

President Seguro promulgated this law with reservations. He flagged the need to protect pending cases, to ensure that administrative delays do not undermine legal timelines, and to preserve trust in the institutions. These are the right concerns, clearly stated.

But a promulgation note is not a legal protection. The President exercised the minimum of what the constitutional moment asked of him. A corrective veto — an invitation to Parliament to revisit the law, introduce a meaningful transitional regime, and give practical effect to the principles of trust and legal certainty he himself invoked — would have been the fuller exercise of the magistracy of influence the Constitution places in his hands.

Anticipating defeat is not the same as vetoing. Doing nothing when one has the legitimacy and the obligation to act is its own choice — and its own responsibility.

What remains now is the regulatory process. That process must deliver what the law failed to: binding protection for those who were already on the path, a meaningful mechanism for ensuring that AIMA's delays do not eat into naturalization timelines, and a clear commitment that the state will not transfer onto individuals the consequences of its own institutional failures.

What Is at Stake — and What Can Still Be Done

The ten-year requirement now places Portugal at the absolute upper limit permitted by the European Convention on Nationality, ratified in 2000. Combined with structural administrative delays that are not going to disappear overnight, the effective waiting period will systematically exceed that limit. This is not a theoretical concern — it is a practical certainty that will generate legal challenges domestically and at the European level.

More than 500 Golden Visa holders are already organizing collective legal action. Multiple law firms are preparing filings. The Constitutional Court has already ruled unanimously — an unusual signal — on unconstitutionality in previous versions of this decree. This is not going away.

But litigation is not the outcome anyone should want. Portugal's international standing as a legally predictable, open jurisdiction — a place where capital, talent, and families have chosen to put down roots — is worth more than any individual case.

The question now is not whether this law can be challenged. It is whether Portugal will choose to correct it before the courts are asked to do so. The regulatory framework still to be issued is the real opportunity: to ensure that the clock counts fairly, that pending cases are protected, and that AIMA is held to standards that actually allow people to meet their legal obligations within the timelines the law sets.

Portuguese democracy has, over its history, shown a singular capacity to combine firmness with equity, and principle with humanity. Portugal's constitution commits the state — in its own preamble — to openness to all peoples of the world and to the construction of a just and free society. These are not rhetorical flourishes. They are interpretive and operational commitments.

The people who believed in Portugal, who invested here, who raised families here — they believed in those commitments. The task now is to show that Portugal's word still means something.

That is not a small thing. It is the whole thing.

‍