Commenting on the President of the Republic’s decision to send the legal amendments regarding the entry, residence, exit, and removal of foreigners from national territory to the Constitutional Court (TC), Timóteo Macedo expressed hope that the measure would be rejected.
“Better late than never, and he must do the same with the nationality law, given its constitutional issues,” stated the president of Solidariedade Imigrante (Solim) about the amendment to be discussed in September, imposing new restrictions on citizenship access.
In the case of immigration law, Timóteo Macedo concurs with Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa’s concerns about limitations on “family reunification and other basic rights,” but also wishes to hear from institutions and constitutional experts about the defense rights immigrants lack under the new regime.
“Currently, immigrants with pending hierarchical and judicial appeals are being detained without first receiving responses” from state services, remarked Timóteo Macedo, noting the impact on employment.
“Just yesterday, three people were dismissed because they still don’t have their documents, although their processes are under review,” said Macedo, accusing the administration (with support from Chega) of fostering illegal behavior.
“We are facing an open door for mafias,” to exploit immigrants, “profiting increasingly at the expense of the unfortunate,” he emphasized.
This law has become “a penal code,” imposing “duties and penalties for those who do not comply,” without holding the state accountable for failures and delays.
“Portugal is regressing civilly, regressing in rights, violently attacking acquired rights that should not be revoked,” and “immigrants will continue to enter,” albeit illegally, he stated.
“There will be a major collapse of the Portuguese economy,” he predicted.
Before the request was submitted to the TC, the Presidency engaged with associations and political parties to discuss the amendment, which passed in parliament with votes from PSD, CDS-PP, and Chega, abstentions from IL, and opposing votes from PS, Livre, PCP, BE, PAN, and JPP.
The President of the Republic opposes changes to family reunification rules introduced in foreign entry regulations, citing the principle of family unity and the best interests of the child, urging the Constitutional Court for expedited review.
In Thursday’s preventive oversight request, the head of state cited “violations of the principles of equality, proportionality, legal certainty, proportional restriction of rights, access to justice, equality and effective jurisdictional protection, family unity, and administrative adherence to the Constitution,” arising from articles 2, 13, 18 (1 and 2), 20 (1, 4, and 5), 36, 266 (2), and 268 (4) of the Fundamental Law.
Regarding the changes to family reunification brought by this decree, the head of state noted: “These alterations, affecting a vital mechanism for social integration and family life, seem to disproportionately and unequally constrain the principle of family unity, potentially failing to safeguard the best interests of the child, forced to endure prolonged separations.”
In the letter to the TC, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa also mentioned that “the current legislative process was expedited in the Assembly of the Republic, with no adequate consultations or hearings, including constitutional, legal, and/or regimental hearings – mandatory or otherwise –, and when requested, they were done without adhering to legally fixed deadlines and/or within timelines incompatible with effective consultation.”
Two mandatory opinions were from the Superior Councils of the Judiciary (CSM) and Administrative and Tax Courts (CSTAF) which, when contacted, clarified that they will provide opinions on the law only if requested again.
On July 10 and 11, the two judicial management bodies informed the Assembly of the Republic that it was impossible to deliver judgments in just one working day, postponing their positions for a later time.
A source from the CSM later explained that the expectation was for this to happen during the specialty-stage discussion of the law, which, due to the rapid progression, was equally not possible.
