Portugal to expel 18,000 foreigners. Its PM says it's not about the election — or Trump
Minister of the Presidency António Leitão Amaro said Saturday that the centre-right government will issue approximately 18,000 notifications to people in the country illegally to leave. The minister said officials will begin next week by asking some 4,500 foreigners to leave voluntarily within 20 days.
According to the Portugal Resident news website, immigrants will start receiving the first batch of notifications today. Citing reports, the site adds that, if they do not comply, "they will be subject to an expulsion process."
On Monday, news website The Portugal News reported that The Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum (AIMA) had begun the process.
On Sunday, Portugal Pulse news site reported that Prime Minister Luis Montenegro denied that process was being accelerated by the upcoming May 18 election, and said it was part of the process that began in June last year.
He also refuted the opposition's criticism of a "Trumpization" of his campaign, a reference to U.S. President Donald Trump's border crackdowns.
"This is not about forcibly removing someone. It is about notifying the person, and the person can appeal. If they cannot meet the requirements, they must leave," Montenegro said, according to Portugal Pulse.
Rise of the right
Portugal, which has a population of around 10.6 million people, has had a series of minority governments in recent years as the traditional rivals for power, the centre-right Social Democratic Party and the centre-left Socialists, lost votes to growing smaller parties.
One of these parties is the Chega party, which the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications notes has often been labelled a "radical right populist party due to its policies and rhetoric. It advocates an anti-immigration stance, with a particular emphasis on reducing illegal immigration and strengthening border security."
The country has been caught up in the rising European tide of populism. The Chega party surged into third place in last year's election.
"These results confirm the growing success of the radical populist playbook," including, "staunch opposition to immigration," wrote Filipe Calvão, an associate professor of anthropology and sociology at the University of Chicago, on the Geneva Graduate Institute's website last year.
Portugal will hold an early general election on May 18. Montenegro called the snap ballot in March after his minority government, led by his conservative Social Democratic Party, lost a confidence vote in parliament and stood down.
Anti-immigration sentiment
Portugal's centre-right government has toughened some immigration rules in the past year, reflecting attempts elsewhere in Europe to fend off the rise of the far right.
Among the restrictions last year was outlawing a widely used mechanism called "manifestation of interest," which for years allowed non-EU migrants without an employment contract to move to Portugal and request residency after paying social security for a year.
A surge in "digital nomads" had contributed to the growing backlash against immigrants, due to a rise in housing and living costs, The Telegraph reports. According to Fortune, house prices in Lisbon, the capital, rose 30 per cent over the last five years.
Last month, Portuguese riot police detained several ultra-right protesters after clashes in downtown Lisbon marred celebrations of the 51st anniversary of the Carnation Revolution, which ended a fascist dictatorship.
Extreme-right groups such as Ergue-Te (Rise Up), Habeas Corpus and Grupo 1143 had called a rally, which city authorities banned, to protest ahead of the parliamentary election against growing numbers of immigrants.
Around 1.5 million migrants live in Portugal, about triple the number a decade ago. According to the Integral Human Development website, most migration has traditionally flowed from Portuguese-speaking countries, such as Brazil, Cape Verde and Angola.
According to the OECD, Brazil, India and Italy were the top three nationalities of newcomers to Portugal in 2022, and in 2023, the number of first asylum applicants increased by 31 per cent. The majority of applicants came from the Gambia, Afghanistan and Colombia, the OECD reports.
Around 14 per cent of taxpayers are migrants, Reuters reports, contributing more than 1.6 billion euros ($2.5 billion Cdn) to the economy in 2022, while receiving about 257 million euros ($401 million Cdn) in social benefits.
WATCH | How Germany's far right is drawing in young voters:
How Germany's far-right is drawing in young voters
2 months ago
Duration 5:39
Alternative for Germany (AfD) is on course to become the second-largest player in the country's parliament after Sunday's election. CBC's Margaret Evans breaks down how social media and influencers have helped the far-right political party make big gains with young voters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Calgary Herald
10 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
An American embraces the spirit of Canada
Article content 'The Hall of Gods,' exclaimed Mary Schaffer in 1929 as she boated across Alberta's Maligne Lake, with its turquoise waters and sculpted mountain peaks. The first European to behold his land of wonder, she was told by First Nations people there that the very small land mass at the lake's centre was to them 'Spirit Island'. Article content My wife and I arrived in Alberta on July 2 with two questions: Was Jasper National Park as beautiful as I remembered from a 1970s visit? And second, how has the Canadian spirit responded to threats of annexation from the United States? Article content Article content Article content We had heard at least one American tour company was skipping Jasper—citing logistical concerns, but perhaps also with doubts that the area had recovered from last year's wildfires. The park indeed lost some forest. Guides estimated that three to five per cent of parkland was affected. As Canadians undoubtedly know, we learned that the town of Jasper, however, suffered much more—nearly 30 per cent of its property was destroyed. Article content Article content Yet, the spirit of Alberta is one of resilience. Some residents are still in temporary shelters, but are awaiting permanent housing; some businesses haven't reopened; others feared a loss of tourists. But visitors from all over the world are hearing that Jasper remains a magical place, not a site to be avoided. Article content On June 29, three days before we embarked for Calgary, the American president once again told Time magazine that he intended to annex Canada as the 51st state. An American friend of ours wondered whether Canadians only tolerate American tourists for their money. Article content Article content We found the opposite. People in Alberta were eager to share one of the most beautiful places on Earth —wanting us to share in the spirit of adventure that the Canadian Rockies offer. Though we mostly avoided politics, I did say 'I'm sorry' to two Canadians, neither voiced anger at the sovereignty-attacking words by our president. Article content Canadians appear to like understatement. One example came from a historical marker by the Bow River. A sign recounted how a hiker fell into a ditch. He reportedly told his mates, 'It would be good to deal with this situation with haste.' Article content That gentle understatement felt quintessentially Canadian — echoing Britain's enduring 'stiff upper lip' influence. Another example: a wildlife guide telling us of a tourist trampled by an elk, commenting: 'We find a range of intelligences here.' Article content What amazed me most in terms of Canadian attitude was what we didn't see: there were no protest signs, no anti-American buttons or stickers. At least in the parts of Alberta we visited, political expression was invisible. Had the situation been reversed, fierce anti-Canadian protest messaging would be very prominent, and I would fear for the safety of Canadians visiting the States.
Canada News.Net
a day ago
- Canada News.Net
The recognition of Palestine: Western unity is collapsing
The recent declarations by US allies are not merely symbolic and represent the first steps toward a new international reality The ongoing armed conflict in Gaza, along with the intensification of Israeli military operations against Palestinians - including in the West Bank - has provoked growing concern and condemnation from the international community. The deepening humanitarian catastrophe, marked by destroyed infrastructure, acute shortages of food, water, and medical aid, has pushed millions to the brink of survival. The increasing scale of destruction, the mass displacement of civilians, and violations of fundamental norms of international humanitarian law are increasingly being interpreted as elements of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. Numerous international organizations, human rights groups, and independent observers have expressed alarm over the disproportionate use of force and the systematic pressure exerted on the civilian population. In the face of inaction by leading international institutions - which continue to call for an immediate ceasefire and unfettered humanitarian access - criticism of double standards has intensified, and public trust in the global community's ability to stop the violence and uphold the rights of conflict victims is rapidly eroding. Even among Israel's Western allies, discontent with the actions of the Israeli authorities is becoming more pronounced. Large-scale military operations resulting in widespread destruction and civilian casualties have triggered sharp reactions not only from international organizations but also within Western societies themselves. Regular mass protests in major cities across Europe and North America are increasing pressure on political leaders, compelling them to reassess their stance and respond to the demands of their citizens. Under the influence of mounting public pressure, some countries have already taken concrete diplomatic steps. On May 28, 2024, Norway, Spain, and Ireland formally recognized Palestine as an independent state - an act that resonated widely and set a precedent for other nations in the region. At this juncture, calls are growing louder for similar steps to be taken by two key European powers: France and the United Kingdom. Both countries are facing escalating domestic and international pressure, which may hasten the process of Palestinian recognition and shift the balance on the diplomatic front of the Middle East conflict. French President Emmanuel Macron has already announced his intention to formally recognize the State of Palestine on behalf of France during his address to the United Nations General Assembly this September. He made the announcement via X, emphasizing that the decision reflects France's unwavering commitment to justice and the pursuit of a lasting peace in the Middle East. The French leader underscored the urgent need for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Gaza and the swift delivery of humanitarian aid to the affected civilian population. To further demonstrate the seriousness of his intentions, he also released a letter addressed to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, reaffirming France's support for the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. If France follows through with this step, it will become the largest and most influential member state of the European Union to recognize Palestine as an independent state. According to the Associated Press, the State of Palestine has already been recognized by more than 140 UN member countries, including major powers such as Russia, China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Sweden, and Poland. Macron's announcement marks a potential turning point in European diplomacy and may serve as a catalyst for similar moves by other major states. Indeed, calls for the recognition of Palestine have also gained momentum in London. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that his country is prepared to recognize the State of Palestine during the upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025, should Israel fail to take concrete and meaningful steps to end the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip. This statement came amid mounting international pressure and growing criticism of the IDF's actions. Starmer emphasized that the decision to recognize Palestinian statehood would be a response to the Israeli government's inaction, should it fail to demonstrate a clear political will to de-escalate the conflict. In particular, the Prime Minister called on Israel to implement an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and to revive efforts toward a sustainable peace process based on the principle of "two states for two peoples." He noted that only a return to a credible prospect of two sovereign states coexisting peacefully could bring an end to the ongoing violence and suffering of the civilian population. Among the additional conditions set forth by the British side are: the provision of humanitarian access to Gaza under UN auspices and a halt to Israeli annexation efforts in the West Bank. According to Starmer, adherence to these conditions would signal Israel's readiness for a political resolution, while disregarding them would indicate that the international community must act independently in the interest of peace and justice. At the same time, the British prime minister also criticized Hamas, stressing that recognition of a Palestinian state does not imply overlooking the role the group has played in escalating the conflict. Starmer demanded the immediate release of all remaining hostages, the laying down of arms, and an official renunciation by Hamas of any claim to governance in the Gaza Strip. He underlined that the United Kingdom does not recognize any legitimate role for Hamas in the future political structure of Palestinian governance. Following the announcements from France and the United Kingdom, several other countries have also declared their intention to formally recognize the State of Palestine, further strengthening international support for the two-state solution as the foundation for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Ottawa will recognize Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly. According to him, Canada has long supported a resolution based on the peaceful coexistence of two states - Israeli and Palestinian - within a framework of security and mutual recognition. Carney stressed that the actions of the Israeli government, which have led to a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, are met with deep condemnation by Canadian authorities. He also noted that Mahmoud Abbas has provided assurances that elections will be held in the Palestinian territories in 2026, in which the Hamas movement will not participate. Furthermore, Abbas has pledged that the future Palestinian state will not be militarized - a key condition for ensuring stability and fostering trust from the international community. Malta has also joined the move to recognize Palestine. On the evening of July 30, Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela confirmed that his government intends to make a formal statement at the upcoming UN General Assembly session. He emphasized that this step is part of Malta's broader diplomatic strategy, aimed at achieving lasting peace in the Middle East. Abela had initially announced similar plans back in May, stating his intention to recognize Palestine at the UN conference in June, although the event was later postponed. Israel's response to these international initiatives has been sharply negative. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the decisions of Canada and other countries, calling them "a reward for Hamas" and "a blow to efforts to establish a ceasefire." Nonetheless, the growing list of nations willing to recognize Palestinian statehood points to a significant shift in global diplomacy and to the increasing isolation of Israel's position amid the ongoing conflict. What makes the current situation around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict particularly unique is that the decisions by France, the UK, and Canada to recognize the State of Palestine are not occurring in a vacuum - they are unfolding against the backdrop of profound shifts in global politics, most notably the deepening rift within the so-called "collective West." The return of Donald Trump to the White House has heightened tensions between Washington and its traditional European allies, directly impacting the foreign policy priorities of those countries. Thus, the actions taken by Paris, London, and Ottawa should be seen not only as a response to mounting domestic pressure and public discontent over the situation in Gaza, but also as part of a broader struggle to shape an independent and sovereign position on the international stage. It is increasingly clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long ceased to be merely a regional issue - it has historically served as a stage for wider geopolitical rivalry, and the current developments only reaffirm this reality. Since its inception, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been accompanied by global competition among great powers. Today, amid the collapse of the old world order and the emergence of new centers of power, it once again stands as a symbol of global division. Judging by recent statements, the national governments of Europe are now attempting to articulate an independent stance on the Palestinian question, signaling a clear distancing from the Trump administration's policies. Despite occasional disagreements with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the US under Trump remains a staunch ally of Israel. In his trademark style, Trump has already expressed skepticism regarding the statements made by European leaders. In particular, he claimed that Emmanuel Macron's initiative to recognize Palestine "changes nothing" and "means nothing." Moreover, he sharply criticized Canada, warning of potential complications in trade relations with Ottawa should it proceed with the recognition of Palestinian statehood. "It will make it much harder for us to reach a trade deal with them," Trump wrote on his social network, Truth Social. As for the UK, Trump has distanced himself from any prior agreements with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, stating that "the issue of recognizing Palestine" had never been discussed between them. The US Department of State also weighed in. Spokesperson Tammy Bruce declared that the UK's recognition of Palestine is "a slap in the face to the victims of October 7" and "a reward for Hamas." According to her, such a move "gives one side false hope" and undermines diplomatic efforts to achieve a lasting peace, ultimately playing into the hands of radical forces. Thus, the emerging bloc of countries willing to recognize Palestine stands in stark contrast to Washington's position, underscoring the growing fragmentation within the Western world. The initiatives by London, Paris, and Ottawa are not only political responses to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza but also expressions of a desire to assert a new, more independent role for their nations amid tectonic shifts in international relations. The evolving international dynamic surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict signals a significant transformation in the global approach to this long-standing and tragic confrontation. An increasing number of countries - no longer limited to Palestine's traditional allies among BRICS members or the Islamic world, but now including key Western powers - are adopting more principled and active positions on the recognition of Palestinian statehood and the long-discussed "two states for two peoples" formula. France, the UK, Canada, and previously Spain, Ireland, and Norway, through their public statements and diplomatic actions, are clearly signaling that they are no longer willing to remain passive observers of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. Their stance increasingly clashes with Washington's, particularly in light of Trump's return to the White House. Despite occasional tactical differences with Benjamin Netanyahu's government, Trump continues to offer Israel unwavering support. This has not only contributed to Israel's growing international isolation but also reflects mounting frustration among the global majority toward the actions of the Israeli state and its principal ally. The intensification of diplomatic engagement from the Global South - especially from BRICS countries such as Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and Russia - is contributing to a new architecture of international pressure. These nations have consistently advocated for a just resolution to the conflict and have emphasized the need to uphold the Palestinian people's rights to self-determination and statehood. The Muslim world, particularly Arab states, has also played a pivotal role in this coalition. Despite varying relationships with Israel, these countries are increasingly speaking with one voice in defense of Palestinians, especially in response to the devastation in Gaza and the mounting civilian death toll. As a result, an unprecedented situation is taking shape: a growing consensus among countries representing the global majority is coming into direct conflict with the positions of Israel and the US, which are increasingly seen as stubbornly unilateral and outdated. This is not merely a diplomatic disagreement or a matter of regional instability - it is a fault line in the emerging world order, where the Palestinian issue is becoming a symbol of the broader struggle between a rising multipolar world and the waning era of Western hegemony. The danger of the current moment lies in the possibility that the Middle East may once again become the epicenter of global confrontation. At a time when international institutions are losing their effectiveness and the norms of international law are increasingly being ignored, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict risks escalating into a flashpoint between the US and Israel on one side, and the rest of the world on the other. This presents a threat not merely of regional escalation, but of the emergence of a new front in a broader global conflict. Israel, which now finds itself in the position of an isolated power steadfastly resisting an emerging global consensus, risks becoming a symbol of defiance against the very notion of a just international order. Support from the US - whose geopolitical hegemony is increasingly being questioned - may prove insufficient in a world where the majority of humanity, represented in the UN and other international forums, is demanding justice, respect for human rights, and the recognition of the Palestinian people. This is why the recent diplomatic moves and declarations by Western nations recognizing Palestine are not merely symbolic or moral gestures. They represent the first steps toward a new international reality - one in which the future of the Middle East conflict will be determined not by behind-the-scenes deals, but by the balance of power in a global struggle to redefine the meaning of international justice.
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
El Salvador opens path for Bukele to stay in power indefinitely. Why critics aren't surprised
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (AP) — El Salvador's Legislative Assembly pushed through a constitutional reform overnight eliminating presidential term limits, fueling concerns Friday that it paves the way for President Nayib Bukele to indefinitely stay in power. Watchdogs and critics of the self-described 'world's coolest dictator' said they've seen this coming for years, watching Bukele's administration slowly chip away at democratic institutions, attack opponents and consolidate power in the president's hands. Bukele, who regularly posts streams of tongue-in-cheek remarks on social media, remained notably silent Friday. His government didn't respond to multiple requests for comment. 'It's not surprising. But that doesn't mean it's not severe,' said Claudia Ortiz, one of the country's few remaining opposition lawmakers. 'The implication of this is more concentration of power, more risk of abuse of the rights of Salvadorans … and the complete dismantling of all democratic checks and balances.' Here's what happened overnight in El Salvador On Thursday night, Bukele's New Ideas party and its allies approved changes to El Salvador's constitution, which were jammed through Congress by the party's supermajority. The changes will: 1. Allow for indefinite presidential reelection, wiping out an existing ban on reelection that Bukele dodged last year when he sought reelection. 2. Extend presidential terms to six years from five. 3. Eliminate the second round of elections, where the two top vote-getters from the first round face off. The vote passed with 57 in favor and three opposed. Damian Merlo, a U.S. lobbyist and consultant hired by Bukele's administration, defended the changes, noting that many European countries don't have term limits, and said the move only gives Bukele the option of reelection, not an automatic extension of his mandate. 'It's up to the people to decide who the leader will be,' Merlo said. 'It's been made very clear by the electorate they are very happy with the president and his political party — and this move represents the will of the people of El Salvador.' Why watchdogs aren't surprised Ortiz, the opposition congresswoman, called the defense 'absurd,' and said that Merlo was citing countries — Germany and France — with democratic systems of government answering to the countries' parliaments. In El Salvador, power is now entirely concentrated in the hands of Bukele, she said. Bukele, 44, was first elected president in 2019 after founding the New Ideas party, casting aside the country's traditional parties thoroughly discredited by corruption and lack of results. Bukele's highly controlled messaging of beating back the country's gangs and rooting out corruption have gained traction in El Salvador, especially as homicide rates have sharply dropped. But critics say many of the moves he has justified as tackling corruption and violence have actually whittled away at the country's democracy. Over the years, his attacks on opponents and critics have gradually escalated. In recent months, things have come to a head as Bukele has grown emboldened by his new alliance with U.S. President Donald Trump. A number of high profile arrests and a slew of other actions have forced more than 100 members of civil society — lawyers, activists and journalists — to flee their country as political exiles in the span of months. A look back at some of the actions he's taken 4. 2020: Bukele showed up to the country's Legislative Assembly with armed soldiers to pressure lawmakers to approve one of his proposals. 5. 2021: a newly elected legislature controlled by his party purged the country's courts, including the Supreme Court. The lawmakers stacked the courts with loyalists. 6. 2022: Bukele announced a 'state of emergency' to beat back El Salvador's gangs. The move suspended some constitutional rights, and has allowed the government to arrest 86,000 Salvadorans — more than 1% of the country's population — with little evidence. Detainees held in prisons have little access to due process. The government also passed an elections redistricting law that critics said would stack elections in favor of Bukele's party, which was already very popular. 7. 2023: Bukele opened a mega-prison for gangs, known as the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), where Venezuelan deportees from the U.S. were detained for months this year. The prison has been the source of accusations of mass human rights abuses. 8. 2024: Bukele sought reelection, despite El Salvador's constitution clearly blocking consecutive presidential terms. In an interview with The Associated Press, the country's vice president denied last year that El Salvador had become a police state and refused to answer questions about whether he and Bukele would seek a third term. Following his landslide victory, Bukele railed against critics and press. Intensifying his crackdown in 2025 This year, watchdogs have warned that Bukele has ramped up his crackdown on dissent, emboldened by his new alliance with Trump. 9. In May, police violently repressed a peaceful protest near Bukele's house asking the president for help in stopping the eviction of their rural community. 10. Shortly after, the government announced it was passing a 'foreign agents' law, similar to those used by governments in Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Belarus to silence dissent by exerting pressure on organizations that rely on overseas funding. 11. Police have arrested a number of high profile critics. Among them was Ruth López, an anti-corruption lawyer for a top human rights organization. At a court appearance in June, a shackled López escorted by police shouted: 'They're not going to silence me, I want a public trial. … I'm a political prisoner.' The government also arrested prominent constitutional lawyer Enrique Anaya after he called Bukele a 'dictator' and a 'despot' on live TV. 12. In July, López's organization Cristosal announced it was evacuating all staff from El Salvador in the face of intensifying repression. It comes amid a flight of critics and other civil society leaders. What critics saying The recent constitutional reform has fueled a new wave of criticism by civil society in the Central American nation, with leaders saying that Bukele's government has finally done away with one of its last democratic norms. Roxana Cardona, a lawyer and spokeswoman for the Movement of Social Justice and Citizen Control, said 'a democratic state has been transformed into an autocracy.' Cardona was among those to provide legal representation for Venezuelans detained in El Salvador and other Salvadoran youth accused of being gang members. 'Today, democracy has died. A technocracy has been born. Today, we live in a dictatorship,' she said. Others, like human rights lawyer Jayme Magaña, said the idea of alternating power, crucial in a country that still has decades of civil war and dictatorships of the past simmering in its recent memory, has been broken. Magaña said she worried for the future. 'The more changes are made to the system of government, the more we see the state's repression of the Salvadoran population intensifying,' she said. —— Janetsky reported from Mexico City.
