"The PS and Carneiro were responsible for the security breach"

Rui Armindo Freitas, the Deputy Secretary of State for Immigration to the Presidency, does not hesitate to hold the PS and its future Secretary-General, José Luís Carneiro, responsible for a security breach allegedly caused by the issuing of 120,000 residence permits to immigrants without due criminal record checks. This was just one of the situations of “chaos” in migration flows that the Government continues to say it inherited from António Costa’s government — in which José Luís Carneiro was Minister of Internal Affairs.

“More regulation to give dignity to immigrants”

In an interview with the “Justiça Cega” podcast on Rádio Observador, given within the scope of the new proposals for regulating immigration approved by the Council of Ministers last Monday, Rui Armindo Freitas does not clarify whether the Government supports the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the attribution of nationality and residence permits in the last 10 years that Chega wants to promote, but criticizes, whenever he can, the PS's past on the issue of immigration.

In any case, António Leitão Amaro’s Deputy Secretary of State calls on opposition parties to be responsible when analysing the government’s new proposals to tighten the requirements for granting Portuguese nationality, to restrict family groups and to regulate migratory flows from countries in the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries — which, however, continue to be the preferred countries. These and other measures are explained in detail by Rui Armindo Freitas, who also revealed that there are already 1.6 million immigrants in Portugal: “Mitterrand spoke of 15% tolerance in integration. That is where we are.”

[ See the full interview with Rui Armindo Freitas here :]

Chega says it wants to create a mandatory Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) to investigate the granting of nationality and residence permits. It is assumed that the focus of the investigation will be the governments of António Costa between 2015 and 2023. How does the Government view this CPI? It is a matter for parliamentary consideration. Obviously, from our side, scrutiny will always be welcome because we are fully aware…

It will not affect you, it will affect the Socialist Party. Allegedly, it will be about an entire period. We know exactly what we had to do, the emergency measures we had to take, always with the utmost rigor, always taking into account national security issues — many of which were called into question and we have already said so. We had 120,000 residence permits issued without a criminal record check. This was a serious situation that occurred in Portugal.

Is this a perfect example of why a parliamentary investigation is needed to better understand the responsibilities of those who authorized this? If the honourable Members understand it that way, it will be. However, we, the Minister of the Presidency [António Leitão Amaro] and I, have already spoken about this situation more than once, which was of extraordinary gravity...

Is it the PS's responsibility? Exactly, without a doubt.

And what about the future secretary-general of the Socialist Party, José Luís Carneiro? Also.

And even MEP Ana Catarina Mendes too? Whoever was responsible for the portfolio that would be shared at the time.

So can I conclude that this CPI is well regarded by the Government? I didn't say that. CPIs are always the will of parliament and what the parliamentary majority understands, whether a CPI is approved or not, the Government only has to accept what Parliament decides.

Your smile says it all. [Silence]

“We cannot welcome all immigrants, all the time. That is humanism”

The Government's new immigration package aims to regulate migration flows and provide greater dignity to those who arrive in our country and remain. One of the changes involves restricting family reunification. Could increased requirements create greater instability for those who already live in our country because their immediate family is far away? Family reunification is a right enshrined in the European Union. In other words, none of us welcomes a limitation on something that we feel is natural, which is for families to be together. However, there are times in society when pragmatism must take precedence so that we can create the conditions for those who have sought Portugal to have a better life, within the European Union's rules for accessing family reunification. What we are now proposing is a minimum legal residence of two years — which is in line with the European directive.

Can it be said that family reunification is an obligation of the European Union? It is a right enshrined in the European Union. When there are political forces that say “suspend” [family reunification]…

You are referring to the Chega party. … well, this suspension is not even on the table because we have transposed this directive. By subscribing to this directive, this is national legislation, so it must be complied with. We want to restrict access to family reunification for two reasons: because we have had a population explosion and we cannot receive everyone all the time, under any conditions. Our policy is humanist because we want to guarantee conditions for those who come. There are rules that we are restricting now because our society's capacity for integration is also limited.

One of these rules is that it is now necessary to have two years of legal residence to reunite the family. Is the increase in this period intended to prevent court decisions in favor of reunification? No. The objective is exactly what is now set out in this proposal, which is to say: those who have been living in Portugal for two years — that is, are already integrated into the job market, have a stable professional life, and have uninterrupted residence in the country — then, yes, they have access to this possibility of regrouping their families. What was allowed was, at any time, without any kind of limitation, to carry out regrouping without even considering the country's capacity to integrate those who arrived here. We also want to restrict this in order to give dignity to those who are here and security in the immigration system for all those who are national citizens. This is another part of a major reform that was initiated in June of last year, and the objective is precisely this, to restrict this and, when it happens, to do so with dignity.

The government also wants to change the nationality law . The minimum period of residence to obtain Portuguese nationality will increase from 5 to 7 or 10 years, depending on the case. Does the law already apply to current residents — who have been here, for example, for 4 years and 10 months — or will the counter be reset even for those who already live in Portugal? Anyone who, on June 19th — which was when the expectation of this change was generated — had met the material requirements and submitted their application, will naturally not be covered by this change. However, for other citizens who, up until that time, had not submitted their respective application [for obtaining Portuguese nationality], then, yes, the law will apply from June 19th.

Therefore, in the latter case, the counter is reset to zero and the 7 or 10 year term applies… Exactly.

“The withdrawal of nationality by decision of a judicial court respects the Constitution”

The loss of nationality is expected to be an additional sanction in criminal proceedings for highly serious offences punishable by 5 years or more in prison. There has been much criticism from constitutionalists, more closely linked to the left, claiming that this measure is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of human dignity and associates immigration with criminality. Is the Government confident that this proposal will pass the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court? Of course. This proposed change to the nationality law required a study and analysis that gave us a degree of comfort to be able to move forward with what we believe to be a good measure. We are not talking about an automatic penalty of loss of nationality. What we are proposing is that, during a period of 10 years after nationality is granted, if a crime is committed that is punishable by an effective prison sentence of 5 years, a judge may decide to withdraw the nationality. This is a decision by a court of law.

Do you believe that this makes the measure constitutional? Exactly, that is our understanding.

But can you understand the reasons for the criticism, particularly from constitutionalists, who claim that this matter could imply an association between immigration and crime? That's not what this is about. What we're talking about is that we're talking about 10 years to consolidate nationality. No, it's naturally about making any kind of association... just because someone has applied for nationality, it doesn't mean that they're going to commit a crime in the 10 years after applying for that nationality... There's no kind of association. It's something that's provided for in very well-defined crimes: we're talking about crimes against the State, but also crimes against people. And we're also talking about a question of very serious penalties [five years in prison], in what is the Portuguese criminal tradition.

Let's move on to the issue of expulsions of illegal immigrants — an issue that Minister António Leitão Amaro has been talking about a lot since 2024 because the numbers of expulsions are residual. The Government wants citizens who are in an irregular situation to be expelled from the country if they do not meet the conditions to regularize their situation. And, in this sense, it announced the creation of the National Unit for Foreigners and Borders within the PSP. Has the idea of ​​creating specialized immigration sections in the administrative courts, in order to make expulsion processes more efficient, been dropped? One thing has nothing to do with the other. This reference [to the creation of specialized sections in the administrative courts] had to do with an action plan for migration at an early stage, in which we anticipated a series of tools for the chaotic situation that we inherited in 2024, without knowing exactly how many people would be in Portugal illegally and in the process of regularizing their status. The issue of expulsions — and it is important for people to understand what is happening today — is that Portugal does not have the capacity to do so. AIMA, first of all, does not have the capacity to monitor, because it is not a police body, it is an administrative body. That is why we need the Foreigners and Borders Unit, we need a police force that can control borders, monitor people's stay in national territory and carry out removals and returns, whenever justified.

The Government therefore understands that the Administrative Courts have the capacity to deal with cases when there are complaints or challenges… The processes will proceed as normal, but we also want to see innovations in the removal process. We want a faster process, and this will take place within the scope of the national plan for the implementation of the European Union Pact for Migration and Asylum.

Faster how? We want to cut down on the steps. To make it clear: what we have today is a notification of voluntary abandonment — which is inviting someone to leave. We want to move beyond that phase and move on to coercive removal, as soon as it is justified, without being obliged to notify the person of voluntary abandonment. Basically, to say: “Look, you have to leave.”

But can this coercive abandonment be challenged in court? It could be, with much more compressed deadlines than today.

“SEF was extinguished in a totally irresponsible way”

This National Foreigners and Borders Unit seems to be a copy, to a certain extent, of the Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF), with former SEF inspectors having been incorporated into the Judicial Police (PJ). Two questions in one: will the PSP's National Foreigners and Borders Unit gain criminal investigation powers that are currently held by the Judicial Police? There will be no absorption of the PJ's powers. What we need the National Unit for Foreigners and Borders to be is border control, monitoring of stay and return - without the return having to be in AIMA, then passed to another entity and entering into an administrative ordeal to carry out a return that is not compatible with the current needs of our country for a coercive removal.

The extinction of SEF was a waste of time — this seems to be unanimous. The abolition of the SEF would be the subject of hours of discussion, because, in fact, it was abolished in a totally irresponsible manner. More than that: it called into question decades of knowledge that those inspectors and that police force had about border control, inspection, control of travel documents, the quality of travel documents themselves... There was knowledge that was lost. The SEF also had the area of ​​integration, which it combined with the High Commission for Migration — which was also abolished and about which little is said. Ultimately, the lack of migration policies also made integration very difficult in this brutal wave of migration that we have had to Portugal.

Do you think there is still a lot to be said about José Luís Carneiro's responsibility in this matter, about the extinction of SEF? I think that there is a lot of responsibility to be taken on by all those involved. I didn't want to specify any, but I think that what happened with the closure of SEF... brought little good.

The first Montenegrin government initiated the construction of detention centers to hold immigrants who are in an illegal situation and are awaiting a court decision on their stay or expulsion. Is there a date for the first detention center to start operating? Yes. First of all, a very brief explanation, so that people understand: when an illegal immigrant is detected, they can only be detained in these detention centres called CITES – Temporary Installation Centres. If we don’t have them, we can’t detain them. In other words, Portugal currently has around 60 places, all of them occupied, in this type of facility. And we need a thousand places. Last year, we started a race against time to launch tenders for the construction of infrastructure for the first 600 places. These facilities will have to be ready over the next few months – I would say during 2026.

Do you have a specific date for the first center to begin operating? From the second half of 2026.

After the processes related to expressions of interest, the issue of renewals of residence permits arises, with the deadline for these permits having been extended until 15 October. What will this renewal process be like? Well, the way you described the handling of expressions of interest seems easy. It is true that they are being handled, but once again, I have to explain. There were 440,000 cases. In order to resolve 440,000 cases — and to have carried out, to date, in the mission structure, not only expressions of interest, but also more than 500,000 face-to-face consultations — we managed to ensure that AIMA, which was serving 800 people per day, suddenly had the capacity to serve 6,000. It was a huge operation to bring security to an immigration system that, for some time, did not even have the capacity to register biometric data or check criminal records.

And is this a capacity that will now be transferred to this process of renewing the residence permit? The mission structure has seen its life extended until the end of the year, because we already anticipated that we would introduce this renewal of documents for all citizens who have expired documents and who have seen — administratively or by decree-law — their validity extended since 2020. This is a situation that must end and will end.

Will this renewal process also use this structure to accelerate these processes? You will use this structure. You will, once again, provide assistance, provide instruction, call people, everything... The immigrant communities that were clients of the admission structure, many of them have the ability to inform them about how the process will be carried out in their social networks, because the processing will be very similar to that one. However, here we are talking about a process that is slightly faster, because the criminal record of the country of origin, in the case of renewal, has already been checked at the first issue.

“I have never heard Chega propose ending the expression of interest”

Left-wing parties and commentators, as well as immigrant advocacy associations, have spoken of a “Cheguization” of the PSD — a new word in the political dictionary — for advocating tougher measures to control immigration. Is the government counting more on Chega or the Socialist Party to get this package of measures passed? The Government relies on everyone's responsibility, above all else. Last year, the Government requested the Foreigners and Borders Unit and it was voted against by two parties: one to its right [Chega] and the other to its left [PS].

And the PS seems to have started to support the Government on the migration issue. The PS changed its position during the campaign. It did a U-turn around December, acknowledging that not everything worked well on immigration. Chega itself sometimes tries to use misinformation to promote less positive instincts in the community. On an issue like immigration, which is very sensitive and jeopardizes social cohesion, politicians must always exercise their ability to contradict, but with a sense of responsibility and with the truth. There is no point in wanting to welcome everyone with open arms to Portugal if we do not have the capacity to welcome them. More than that: we must ensure that citizens trust the immigration system, so that they can welcome those who may have different religions and skin color. Because they know that those who are here comply with the rules of a democratic State governed by the rule of law, which is our country.

I will insist on the question. The PS has already given a negative initial opinion on the changes announced by the Government, while Chega seems to be more satisfied with its proposals. Taking these positions into account, will the Government count more on Chega than on the PS? These measures will be the subject of intense parliamentary debate.

And is the Government available to clean them up as necessary? Responsibility will certainly prevail in the parliamentary debate, because these measures are necessary and urgent so that we can have a more balanced country when it comes to immigration. The Government has led the reform of the immigration system. We ended the expression of interest and I never heard Chega propose the end of the expression of interest, which was the real door wide open. The Government found the solution because it is on the side of innovation and urges all parties to have the same responsibility to support these measures.

So, is there not much room for the Government to make major changes to what was already the proposal presented this week? We all have room for improvement, but as I said, we have led this discussion and we invite all those responsible to join us.

“The CPLP is a preferred space for circulation due to the ease of integration, but we want to regulate this channel”

The Executive wants to eliminate the possibility of obtaining CPLP authorization with tourist visas or visa exemptions. And they will now have to undergo security checks in the Internal Security System. Two questions in one: what does this check mean and are these measures the result of European Union requirements? The visa exemption applies to two countries in the CPLP area: Brazil and East Timor. What happened is that, in fact, there was an understanding that any person coming from the CPLP area with a visa exemption, when entering national territory, could apply for a residence permit.

In the case of citizens of Brazilian origin, this has a very strong impact, taking into account the weight of immigration from that country. Yes. We want all citizens to come to our country, regardless of their origins, and we give priority to the CPLP. Today, the CPLP is a preferred space for movement, first and foremost because integration is facilitated by the language. However, we have always talked about regulating this CPLP channel, because there was no way to control the entry of all those who were exempt from visas. This is the change.

In other words, there is now greater control and that is what this verification means. As already exists for other CPLP countries.

Minister António Leitão Amaro said, at the press conference of the Council of Ministers that approved this package, that companies will have to adapt to these new rules. Given that we are going through a crucial phase of implementing the RRP, particularly in terms of increasing the supply of housing and public works, are you not concerned that there will be a shortage of workers? I am not afraid because, in due time, we began to prepare for this need. The migration plan presented in June 2024 already anticipated that, when we closed the wide-open door, we would have to have the doors regulated. The Socialist Party demolished the gate, threw away the gate and, without a gate, said that things would work. What this Government did was build a gate that works according to our needs. Therefore, the regular labor migration protocol that was designed with the employers' associations and confederations provides that a company can signal the need and have the workforce it needs, when it needs it. These are the labor migration corridors that can now be innovative in Portugal, but labor migration corridors are desirable in the context of immigration from an international point of view.

And are companies adapting well to these rules? They are starting to adapt. Naturally, given the previous lack of rules, there will be a period of adaptation.

Is there any concrete data you can present? I won't give you any specific data. However, as time goes by, the number of processes that we have with the Directorate-General for Consular Affairs is increasing, for recruitment and for issuing visas under the Labour Migration Protocol. However, we are now entering a new phase that includes the possibility of large companies joining directly. And I would like to point out this very important point: many people say: "What if it's an SME, can't you do it?" You can, through your employers' association. Why did we make this distinction? Because large companies have the resources that allow them to go directly and sign the terms of responsibility, which we would not be able to do with small and medium-sized companies otherwise, but which can be done through associations.

Also this Tuesday, Armindo Monteiro, here on Contra-Corrente on Rádio Observador, said that this mechanism still has some flaws and that more incentives are needed to call these workers, because the minimum wage is sometimes not enough. Well, this is an adjustment that the economy itself has to make, because when we had the door wide open, we often had precarious work. That is not what we want for Portuguese society. We want the Portuguese economy to have more added value, to be able to move up the value chain. Wage pressure is itself also a factor in innovation when a new cost is introduced. We also want products to be able to be worked on more, with more added value.

And we want immigration that helps us on this path. Also, because we do not want unregulated, illegal immigration that perpetuates us on a path of indignity in the workplace and lack of respect for workers' rights. This is not the case across the board, but illegal immigration lends itself to such abuses.

“Government does not expect to take emergency measures to control migration flows”

The first AD Government practically began its term with the announcement that there were 400,000 foreign citizens in an illegal situation and that the AIMA was paralyzed. Can we say that, by 2025, we will have resolved this problem of 400,000 illegal citizens? Yes.

Prime Minister Luís Montenegro has referred several times to the situation in Belgium and Sweden as examples of unregulated immigration, where there is a link between the increase in crime and the lack of integration of part of the immigration. Belgium has a proportion of 17% of citizens with an immigrant background in the total population, while in Sweden this proportion is around 20%. In our case, this proportion is around 10%, but it has grown very rapidly over the last 10 years. Is the government's ultimate goal to prevent Portugal from reaching the figures of Belgium and Sweden? The numbers in Portugal are already higher, 1.6 million of our population. Mitterrand spoke of a 15% tolerance for integration [of immigration]. That is where we are. That is why we believe that this is a crucial moment to win the fight for social cohesion in Portugal. To this end, all the measures we have taken in the area of ​​integration are essential, such as integration in schools, with linguistic and cultural mediators, to monitor the integration of the children of immigrant citizens in schools. Obviously, issues of social exclusion are not exclusive to immigrant citizens; they are issues that arise from contexts of social vulnerability. Naturally, unregulated immigration lent itself to much of this, it lent itself to marginalization phenomena, often undesirable in a cohesive society. This is the challenge we face and it is the challenge we are addressing.

Taking into account precisely what you just said about the tolerance number, the aforementioned 15%, if the number of immigrants compared to the total population continues to rise, will the Government consider further restricting the entry point? This government does not expect to take emergency measures because those who are taking will allow migratory flows to the necessary social cohesion. It is impossible for someone to feel integrated if he does not have the most basic factor, which is a document that enables him to be legal. I do not want to quantify, because I think it is not to quantify… there is no number. We could have a lower number of percentage of immigrants vs total population and with a worse result of social cohesion. Integration policies are not governed by percentage of immigrant population percentage.