The foreign nationals law was approved in Parliament with votes in favor from PSD, Chega, and CDS.
The measure was passed amid criticism over the absence of mandatory opinions and the government’s haste, which led to IL’s abstention.
The changes to the legal regime for the entry, stay, exit, and removal of foreign nationals from the national territory had already been approved by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the 11th, with opposition from the left, alleging breaches of the law due to missing mandatory opinions.
This time, in the plenary session, IL chose to abstain, with Deputy Rui Rocha justifying the change of position as the legislative process was “absolutely inadmissible on the part of the social democratic party,” with “legislative proposals at the 25th hour.”
Rui Rocha described it as “sensitive legislation that did not have all the guarantees in its legislative process.”
The issue concerns the lack of mandatory opinions and hearings from immigrant associations and constitutionalists requested by opposition parties.
Pedro Delgado Alves (PS) criticized the “procedural breaches” and “hyper-speed” imposed by the government, noting that “no opinions were presented,” hindering constitutionalists and members of immigrant associations from “participating in the legislative process.”
The “contents are problematic,” imposing “limits on the right of access” for immigrants with “risks for the Portuguese economy and our community life,” the deputy commented, criticizing the government coalition for allying with Chega.
“The government has chosen its partner,” opting for “a dangerous agenda” that opens “the doors to extremism,” he said, addressing the PSD bench: “Please don’t be held hostage by the far right,” because “this is a shame.”
António Rodrigues (PSD) rejected the notion that his party does not want to debate the topic and regretted that the PS did not bring forward amendments.
“Immigration was the most discussed matter in Portugal over the last 15 months,” he stated.
Socialist deputies “had the opportunity to propose, to reflect. Urgency is required due to years of legislative incapacity, an inability to decide,” because “they wanted to continue in the same mire they were living in.”
Vanessa Barata (Chega) justified the legislation change due to the “irresponsible policies of the PS,” which promoted a “policy of open doors, without control and without considering the consequences” for the country.
“We have entire neighborhoods in collapse, growing insecurity, and precarity which primarily affects our own, the Portuguese who live and work here,” stated the Chega deputy, closing with a quote from the Prime Minister: “Let us work.”
Bloquista Mariana Mortágua claimed that “the arguments the government and Chega use to rush legislation are deceitful,” accusing the two benches of engaging in “repugnant opportunism” that “endangers lives and well-being.”
Thus, the deputy made an “appeal to the President of the Republic” to veto the now-approved law: “A Christian democrat would never let this law pass.”
Despite ultimately abstaining, during the debate, Rui Rocha (IL) criticized what he considered to be a “total uncontrolled entry policy that led the country to an unsustainable situation,” highlighting that the “responsible parties are clearly identified,” referring to the PS.
From Livre, Paulo Muacho emphasized that it is a “malicious law” that was “made without listening to anyone” and “imposed by an arrogant majority,” against those “who help build” the country every day.
“Even entities whose hearing is mandatory, you chose not to hear,” he said.
Inês Sousa Real, from PAN, criticized the “breaches of the law” and recalled that the new family reunification rules should require the hearing of the National Commission for Children and Young People: “We all recognize that migration flows must comply with the law,” but “it must be [a humane decree].”
João Almeida (CDS) considered that the new foreign nationals law is “necessary, points in the right direction, and is urgent” given the condition the country was left in.
“People are not asleep and will adapt their behavior to what is going to happen,” and the speed effect “would be lost” between the discussion and the approval of the new legislation.
Paula Santos (PCP) believed it was a “process that prevented the Assembly of the Republic from doing serious and thoughtful work” and saw “an imposition of a political option that attacks the rights of the poor and CPLP citizens,” unlike the “golden visas” where “all rights are safeguarded.”
Here “there is no humanism present,” but rather “a class option” that favors illegal immigration, exposing “immigrants to exploitation and mafias,” she added.
Filipe Sousa, from JPP, lamented the speed of the process and criticized the “extremely complex scope” of the decree that “will affect thousands of people and families.”
The government’s proposal and Chega’s requested amendments, it should be noted, focus on issues like family reunification and the duration of legal residence in national territory, approved by the entire parliamentary right (PSD, CDS-PP, Chega, and Iniciativa Liberal).
For family reunification, the right imposes a minimum period of two years for requests to be made after granting the residence permit, delaying the start of these processes for newly regularized immigrants, a move criticized for hindering integration.
