1. Portugal is redefining the limits of its hospitality. The new Foreigners Law, enacted after months of political tension and a veto by the Constitutional Court, promises more control, less automatism and more selective management of immigration. But the question that arises is simple and profound: are we correcting excesses or compromising values?
The version approved by the Assembly of the Republic, with the support of the majority on the right, introduces structural changes to the legal regime for the entry, stay and removal of foreigners. The work search visa, which previously allowed the entry of thousands of citizens without a prior contract, was restricted. Family reunification now requires more proof and time. And the benefits granted to CPLP citizens were reviewed, with a direct impact on communities that have been part of the Portuguese social fabric for decades.
Defenders of the new law point to the need for order. The Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum (AIMA) inherited more than 400,000 pending cases, many of them unanswered for years. The system was saturated, vulnerable to abuse and unable to ensure effective integration. The new law, they say, is an instrument of rationalization. It allows AIMA to prioritize cases, require more documentation and prevent Portugal from becoming an easy entry destination for uncontrolled migratory flows.
But there is a cost. And it’s not just administrative. The new law moves Portugal away from a tradition of openness that has always distinguished us in Europe. The country that welcomed Syrian refugees, that integrated Brazilian, Cape Verdean and Ukrainian communities with relative harmony, now appears to be hesitating. Limiting the work search visa can hold back talent that does not yet have a formal offer, but that could contribute to sectors in need. Stricter family reunification can generate suffering in families separated by borders. And the review of benefits to the CPLP raises doubts about the historical commitment to the Portuguese-speaking space.
There is also a political risk. The law was approved with the support of Chega, a party that has made immigration a battlehorse. The Government, by accepting this support, runs the risk of legitimizing a narrative that turns foreigners into a threat. The promulgation by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, after adjustments that responded to constitutional objections, guarantees the legality of the diploma – but does not resolve the ethical dilemma.
Portugal needs a firm immigration policy, yes. But it also needs a policy that is fair, transparent and consistent with its values. The new Foreigners Law may be a step in the right direction in terms of management, but it is a risky step in terms of identity. The balance between security and solidarity has never been easy – and perhaps it has never been more necessary.
If the law is applied with intelligence, sensitivity and respect for human rights, it can correct distortions without compromising principles. But if it is used as an instrument of exclusion, it could transform Portugal into a country that is less open, less plural and less faithful to its history.
Hospitality is not just measured in numbers. It is measured in choices. And this law is a choice that forces us to think about who we want to be.
2. The recent controversy surrounding the removal of commentator Raquel Varela from RTP Notícias and the possible hiring of influencer Gonçalo Sousa sparked a discussion about the diversity of comment and opinion spaces in the media.
Regarding the cases themselves, much has already been said, for or against the decisions of RTP’s information director, Vítor Gonçalves. Whether or not you agree with these choices, the information department is responsible, under the law, for defining the station’s editorial line, including choosing the people who comment there.
And it is not ideology that determines whether there are “good” or “bad” commentators, but rather the fact of knowing whether what they say contributes to a more informed and enlightened public opinion. Do they explain well what is at stake in the different themes? Are they capable of analyzing with rigor and impartiality? Can you suggest paths and ideas for reflection? Are they balanced, that is, are they able to make an effort to analyze things as they are and not through the lenses of ideology and partisan sectarianism? Do they obey a logic of reason and common sense, or of partisan and ideological combat? Do you base your analyzes on proven facts or fake news?
There is a lot of talk about whether there are commentators of this or that political color and representation in opinion spaces. But there is little talk about quality.