Ilia Bobin, a Russian doctor residing in Portugal for three years after fleeing Putin’s regime, has initiated a petition submitted to the Portuguese parliament. The petition, signed by 12,167 individuals, requests that the proposed government changes, extending the residency requirement for Portuguese speakers to seven years and others to ten, apply only to newcomers, allowing the current five-year rule to remain for those already residing legally at the law’s enactment and holding a residence permit.
“Like me, there are many who work and wish to integrate. I left for political reasons, and naturalization is not just a matter of convenience; it’s a matter of security,” stated the doctor, now living in Seixal and learning Portuguese to practice medicine in the country.
Until then, he operates a cleaning business with his wife. Bobin chose Portugal “for many reasons,” including “the existing naturalization timelines.”
“Foreigners who came to Portugal intending to integrate into Portuguese society planned their lives, careers, and family futures based on the five-year naturalization timeline,” thus a “retroactive change could frustrate legitimately created expectations protected by the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.”
“We, foreign citizens legally residing in Portugal — among whom are professionals from various fields, including IT, management, commerce, services, and other sectors, and parents of children already integrated into Portuguese schools who consider Portugal their home — present this petition in the spirit of constructive dialogue,” note the petition organizers.
The document was signed “by many foreigners” to show they are committed to integrating, explained Ilia Bobin.
Recognizing “the right and duty of Portugal’s parliament to review and refine legislation in response to new societal challenges and needs,” the signatories believe that “the ability to apply for naturalization and expect a fair assessment is a legitimate expectation stemming from the principles of the rule of law.”
The authors argue that new rules should apply “only to future residents,” maintaining “the legal security and legitimate expectations of immigrants residing in the country who have been following established rules in good faith and building their lives in Portugal based on current legislation.”
The promoters invoke principles of legal trust protection, non-retroactivity, legal security, predictability, and equality.
“Changes to the law will create different conditions based on the date of entry into the country — allowing some to naturalize after five years and requiring longer periods from others,” which “may constitute discrimination,” they say.
Additionally, the signatories cite international studies showing that “naturalization promotes better migrant integration into society,” with “better employment indicators, more qualified roles, and higher incomes.”
Applying new rules to already residing foreigners does not align with the right-wing parties’ objectives to limit immigration because “these people are already in Portugal, are not ‘potential immigrants’ but actual residents who will not seek to leave the country,” except for “the most qualified professionals with greater contributive capacity to fiscal and social systems.”
“For thousands of families — some from authoritarian or conflictive countries — obtaining Portuguese nationality is not a formality but a fundamental life goal, ensuring security, dignity, and future for their children,” and “these people have made Portugal their home, placing trust in the national legal system,” reads the petition.
Therefore, “we consider altering the rules midway through this journey is not just an administrative measure but may represent a profound intervention in these people’s lives, compromising their plans, generating disappointment, and distrust,” the authors state.
The nationality law amendments, which include a review of naturalization timelines and citizenship revocation in case of crimes, are under parliamentary discussion, with left-wing opposition claiming the government’s proposal contains unconstitutional elements.
